MixBus before masterbus

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
Asitem
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Jul 2019

Post 02 Dec 2019

Dear people,
I would like to set up a mix bus before the master bus. For example, I want to put a CLA Mixdown plugin in this. I now place this on the master bus while mixing. But that shouldn't be the case. How can I create a template in which I can create a MixBUs that I can mix through?

Thanks everybody.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8109
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

You can create a Bus Channel that receives every channel, but you have to add every new channel you create to this bus. But there won't be any difference between adding a plugin there or in the Master Channel, so I'm not sure I follow your comment that "this shouldn't be the case".
Selig Audio, LLC

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 632
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway

Post 02 Dec 2019

I don't understand what's the logic there?

User avatar
Benedict
Posts: 1978
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Post 02 Dec 2019

I'm with Selig that you could create a Mix Bus that accepts all Channels (by hand - uugh) but seeing, by your description, that is going straight to the Masters anyway, why not simply put Mr Alge on the Masters anyway?

I also agree that you shouldn't really mix into a Compressor or processor so whether it is on your Masters or Bus just in front of em, it will be the same - except with more wiring.

Maybe you can explain a bit more for us?

:-)

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

Benedict wrote:
02 Dec 2019
I'm with Selig that you could create a Mix Bus that accepts all Channels (by hand - uugh) but seeing, by your description, that is going straight to the Masters anyway, why not simply put Mr Alge on the Masters anyway?

I also agree that you shouldn't really mix into a Compressor or processor so whether it is on your Masters or Bus just in front of em, it will be the same - except with more wiring.

Maybe you can explain a bit more for us?

:-)
why not mix into a compressor, or other processing? I’m fairly certain it’s common practice, for many producers. here, Craig Anderton (who has written some of the most iconic tones on the topic of recording) suggests that in Sonar (now Cakewalk) you should add your channel saturation to channels across the board, before you get started. (comment @ around 2:00.)



just another approach one can take if they like. if you’ve got good ears and know what you’re doing, you’ll end up with a good mix regardless.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
Benedict wrote:
02 Dec 2019
I'm with Selig that you could create a Mix Bus that accepts all Channels (by hand - uugh) but seeing, by your description, that is going straight to the Masters anyway, why not simply put Mr Alge on the Masters anyway?

I also agree that you shouldn't really mix into a Compressor or processor so whether it is on your Masters or Bus just in front of em, it will be the same - except with more wiring.

Maybe you can explain a bit more for us?

:-)
why not mix into a compressor, or other processing? I’m fairly certain it’s common practice, for many producers. here, Craig Anderton (who has written much on the topic of recording) suggests that in Sonar (now Cakewalk) you should add your channel saturation to channels across the board, before you get started. (comment @ around 2:00.)



just another approach one can take if they like. if you’ve got good ears and know what you’re doing, you’ll end up with a good mix regardless.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8109
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
why not mix into a compressor, or other processing?
I know there are folks who say they do this, but it's never worked for me. I've said it before: I have enough trouble making a great mix without working against something in the process. When you mix into a compressor, turning one thing up can give the end result of turning other things down. It's a never ending process for me when I've tried doing that in the past.

OTOH, when I add compression to a mix, even before it's 100% finished but after all the major changes have occurred (and I'm making very minor tweaks), it's always better than adding it early. I attribute this to the "garbage in/garbage out" concept. If you have a good mix, compression can help it sound even better. But if you put a rough mix into compression then try to make the mix work, it's like trying to run underwater - for me, at least.

Again, there are experts out there that do it, but I've never met a beginner that can do it. As soon as I totally master the art of compression, I'll feel confident enough to start learning how to mix into a compressor. But since I already know how to mix without a compressor, I'll probably just keep trying to improve on that technique. Always room for improvement - why make it any harder for myself than it already is?!?
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 02 Dec 2019

selig wrote:
02 Dec 2019
guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
why not mix into a compressor, or other processing?
I know there are folks who say they do this, but it's never worked for me. I've said it before: I have enough trouble making a great mix without working against something in the process. When you mix into a compressor, turning one thing up can give the end result of turning other things down. It's a never ending process for me when I've tried doing that in the past.

OTOH, when I add compression to a mix, even before it's 100% finished but after all the major changes have occurred (and I'm making very minor tweaks), it's always better than adding it early. I attribute this to the "garbage in/garbage out" concept. If you have a good mix, compression can help it sound even better. But if you put a rough mix into compression then try to make the mix work, it's like trying to run underwater - for me, at least.

Again, there are experts out there that do it, but I've never met a beginner that can do it. As soon as I totally master the art of compression, I'll feel confident enough to start learning how to mix into a compressor. But since I already know how to mix without a compressor, I'll probably just keep trying to improve on that technique. Always room for improvement - why make it any harder for myself than it already is?!?
:)
I totally agree that it really does come down to personal preference and what works best for the individual. personally, I’ve done both, and continue to do both. but then, I’m sort of all over the place with my process (another example of, ‘hey, it works for me’). I don’t split apart mixing and arranging/production/recording into discrete parts of the process—I’m literally starting my mix as soon as I start recording, and jumping around from thing to thing as I hear stuff along the way. my roundabout point here is that sometimes I find I’ve done an entire mix almost right to completion before realizing I’ve had the master compressor on the whole time. at that point, I’m already usually quite happy with a mix, so the thought of turning it off isn’t appealing, curiosity notwithstanding.

but to never having met a beginner who can pull it off, sure, I can definitely see that. I think a lot of reps should be had before consciously trying to seriously mix into particular processing—especially to your point—if you aren’t fluent in its use. the bottom line though is, it doesn’t really matter, as long as you like the sound coming from your speakers at the end of the process.

but I also think it doesn’t hurt to try it on an experimental basis, even early on in one’s learning. I would just say, keep it as subtle as you possibly can, until you can really hear what’s going on at a detailed level.

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 2351
Joined: 23 Feb 2017

Post 03 Dec 2019

Technically it would still be in the "master section" but you could take the insert FX out and send it to a mix channel, then back to first device in master section, keeping things separate and then you don't have to add every channel to the mix bus manually
Random songs/ideas go here:
https://soundcloud.com/ae-ox/polar/s-Ocxtj

User avatar
Benedict
Posts: 1978
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Post 03 Dec 2019

guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
why not mix into a compressor, or other processing?
Every time... :lol:

Yes it is possible to mix into a compressor and yes some do this. I respect Craig Anderton immensely but he has been mixing for 300 years and is famous for being a synth explainer.

As Selig wisely says tho, it is not always the best plan to mix into a process, esp if you are not already super skilled with Mixing & the vagaries of Compression. There are too many traps already so why create more?

If you run a juicy a Limiter across your masters and push the very first sound you have into it so it sounds like sex on the beach, where does your second sound go? How about the 3rd and 8th sounds. Especially if you set each of them up In Solo. That's 24db+ of limiting on the Master and I guarantee no dynamics or sense of space between instruments at all.

Which then leads to:
What if you set up a mix into a compressor - which means that most of your mix decisions are based on how that compressor "glues" everything together - and then want/need to change that compressor? It is entirely possible that your mix suddenly changes (breaks) and if you haven't consciously understood every interaction within that compression space, you can be in an unhappy place trying to get that mix "back". Tempting to say, "oh but I use Reason, I'll never need to change it" but many of the Reason files (and even Stems) I get sent have baked in decisions that have been unwise and lead to problems the person couldn't solve - one recent one so badly I had to hand the whole thing back. Be open to other possibilities - even as you commit to your course.

:-)

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Dec 2019

Benedict wrote:
03 Dec 2019
guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
why not mix into a compressor, or other processing?
Every time... :lol:

Yes it is possible to mix into a compressor and yes some do this. I respect Craig Anderton immensely but he has been mixing for 300 years and is famous for being a synth explainer.

As Selig wisely says tho, it is not always the best plan to mix into a process, esp if you are not already super skilled with Mixing & the vagaries of Compression. There are too many traps already so why create more?

If you run a juicy a Limiter across your masters and push the very first sound you have into it so it sounds like sex on the beach, where does your second sound go? How about the 3rd and 8th sounds. Especially if you set each of them up In Solo. That's 24db+ of limiting on the Master and I guarantee no dynamics or sense of space between instruments at all.

Which then leads to:
What if you set up a mix into a compressor - which means that most of your mix decisions are based on how that compressor "glues" everything together - and then want/need to change that compressor? It is entirely possible that your mix suddenly changes (breaks) and if you haven't consciously understood every interaction within that compression space, you can be in an unhappy place trying to get that mix "back". Tempting to say, "oh but I use Reason, I'll never need to change it" but many of the Reason files (and even Stems) I get sent have baked in decisions that have been unwise and lead to problems the person couldn't solve - one recent one so badly I had to hand the whole thing back. Be open to other possibilities - even as you commit to your course.

:-)
24 db of limiting? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that much compression is a remotely good idea. I wouldn’t hit the master compressor any harder than I suspect you might...2 db would be too much.

the point is, who are any of us to argue with results? as I’ve said, I’ve mixed into a compressor or other effects many times, and I’ve never gotten to the point where I’ve gotten stuff so out of whack that even removing the processing in question would negatively impact the mix itself. alter, obviously, but something so drastic it required lots of extra work, never. if you’re thinking about 24 db of compression, or running an entire mix through a flanger with the depth cranked all the way up, for example, we’re talking about two drastically different things. :lol:

I get the “don’t do it if you don’t know what you’re doing” thing, but I also think you can throw that advice right out the window, just as you can with any of the “rules” in music. I don’t know much about theory, but I’m confident in my ability to write good music. mixing is no different—they’re just aesthetic decisions. you (not you specifically) can mix following the “rules” if you want, and you may even have a technically impressive mix, but at the end of the day, a mix that’s not perfect, but conveys the song is always preferable to one that is technically good, but lacks the life of the music. yes, it’s important to learn how to use your tools, but *far* more important to learn how not to get in the way of the music. otherwise, what are you even doing behind a console?

I think the “no, you shouldn’t do that because [insert reasons]” thing is valid, but comes from a place of fear. “what happens if I need to change something down the line? what if I decide I want to remove it? what if? what if? what if?”

the answer is...deal with it. you’re (not you specifically) a mix engineer. have some damn faith in yourself. honestly, if you have to deal with something down the line you didn’t expect, that’s going to make you a better mixer. flexibility is an important skill.

Asitem
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Jul 2019

Post 05 Dec 2019

selig wrote:
02 Dec 2019
You can create a Bus Channel that receives every channel, but you have to add every new channel you create to this bus. But there won't be any difference between adding a plugin there or in the Master Channel, so I'm not sure I follow your comment that "this shouldn't be the case".
thank you for the response,

Waves CLA advises to place the plugin on a sub-bus and not on the master. But from your response I understand that it doesn't matter.

Asitem
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Jul 2019

Post 05 Dec 2019

Benedict wrote:
02 Dec 2019
I'm with Selig that you could create a Mix Bus that accepts all Channels (by hand - uugh) but seeing, by your description, that is going straight to the Masters anyway, why not simply put Mr Alge on the Masters anyway?

I also agree that you shouldn't really mix into a Compressor or processor so whether it is on your Masters or Bus just in front of em, it will be the same - except with more wiring.

Maybe you can explain a bit more for us?

:-)
thank you for the response,

I mix through the CLA MIxdown, especially because it gives a nice sound and keeping everything together automatically sets -4db (default). I master the same session with ozone, without bouncing and importing the stereo.

Asitem
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Jul 2019

Post 05 Dec 2019

aeox wrote:
03 Dec 2019
Technically it would still be in the "master section" but you could take the insert FX out and send it to a mix channel, then back to first device in master section, keeping things separate and then you don't have to add every channel to the mix bus manually
I think that's what I need.

Asitem
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Jul 2019

Post 05 Dec 2019

guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019


why not mix into a compressor, or other processing? I’m fairly certain it’s common practice, for many producers. here, Craig Anderton (who has written much on the topic of recording) suggests that in Sonar (now Cakewalk) you should add your channel saturation to channels across the board, before you get started. (comment @ around 2:00.)



just another approach one can take if they like. if you’ve got good ears and know what you’re doing, you’ll end up with a good mix regardless.
I prefer this approach, and have seen the video too, but how do you do that in reason without constantly adding all channels manually? So far only on the master.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 05 Dec 2019

Asitem wrote:
05 Dec 2019
guitfnky wrote:
02 Dec 2019
I prefer this approach, and have seen the video too, but how do you do that in reason without constantly adding all channels manually? So far only on the master.
unfortunately, I don’t think there’s an easy way to do this in Reason without manually adding your processing to all channels. I guess the easiest way might be to create a template with all the tracks hooked up, and load that up at the start of a new project. not ideal, of course, if you do a lot of adding and removing of tracks.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 8109
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 05 Dec 2019

Asitem wrote:
05 Dec 2019
Waves CLA advises to place the plugin on a sub-bus and not on the master. But from your response I understand that it doesn't matter.
Waves says not to use this on the master IN PRO TOOLS. The reason they give is that in Pro Tools the inserts are POST FADER. In Reason, the inserts are PRE FADER, so it's no problem.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
dan_g
Posts: 135
Joined: 28 Sep 2015
Location: Germany

Post Today

hi

quick response on the MixBus Thing. i just now happend to look in this thing too and found out a few points why some guys use a mixbus/pre master.

if you use reference tracks you wanna bypass the mastering chain, so you set up a pre-master and add your chain there. so the references don't get send to the mastering chain. that makes the most sense to me. not sure if you can achieve it somehow diffrent in reason tho.

the other thing might be when you're not "mastering" your track at all, but wanna send some things straight out. so for example you have a heaviely proccessed vocal track that you don't want to crush again on the master. just send it straight to the reason master bus. and all other tracks go to the pre-master with the proccessing you want (eq, comp, etc.) i heard about this technique in a podcast where swedish producer stonebridge talks about his "Smash Bus" principle. i could look for it if you're intrested.

Just my two cents to the MixBus Topic.

Daniel
:reason: :record: :re: :refill: :ignition: - 10.4 - Hobbyist
minimal techno - deep minimal dubstep - drum 'n' bass/neurofunk - brostep/deathstep - band recording

Dread Massaker (DRMSKR) Heavy Dubstep Project: https://soundcloud.com/drmskr

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 632
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway

Post 58 minutes ago

dan_g wrote:
Today
hi

quick response on the MixBus Thing. i just now happend to look in this thing too and found out a few points why some guys use a mixbus/pre master.

if you use reference tracks you wanna bypass the mastering chain, so you set up a pre-master and add your chain there. so the references don't get send to the mastering chain. that makes the most sense to me. not sure if you can achieve it somehow diffrent in reason tho.

the other thing might be when you're not "mastering" your track at all, but wanna send some things straight out. so for example you have a heaviely proccessed vocal track that you don't want to crush again on the master. just send it straight to the reason master bus. and all other tracks go to the pre-master with the proccessing you want (eq, comp, etc.) i heard about this technique in a podcast where swedish producer stonebridge talks about his "Smash Bus" principle. i could look for it if you're intrested.

Just my two cents to the MixBus Topic.

Daniel
That "smash bus" concept by stoney could be set up in Reason as a normal bus though, or as a send, depending on what you want to do exactly.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: dan_g and 0 guests