Using FX Busses

[IMF OnSite Recording]

How many of you use FX busses for your mixes?

I used to not use them at all... but ended up realizing that my mixes were coming out a big too rigid. The problem I was hearing was that if I put FX on just the tracks alone, as the fed through busses with compression and limiting at times it would mutilate the effect and be frustrating. At the time, I didn't know why my mix wasn't sounding so spacious and nice. Using effects on their own busses allows you to control their automation much easier, as well as EQing the effect, without it being harmed by all the gear\plugs that the traditional busses have.. which in turn allow the effects to sound more separated and clear being sent right to the stereo bus. Also, being able to turn the effects up or down in scale with one another is nice. I noticed Dave Pensado has a lot of effects busses as well as an "ALL FX" master fader for them. Could this be why, say, drums can sound so big and hard, but still have a nice smooth reverb? The fact that the reverb is traveling a different path to the master may have to do with its separated sound.

What's your take on having several effects busses?

[fHumble fHingaz]

Interesting topic, Ian!

When I first started out mixing, I had Mixcraft 3, which although quite good for a beginner as I was at the time, it didn't have bussing features at that stage. (They are up to Mixcraft 6 now, & it is much more of a professional package now). I found it really frustrating to have to do everything as inserts... so once I learned about bussing, I downloaded a Sonar demo & realized how much more flexible the bussing technique made the general mixing workflow.... I bought Sonar immediately, & have been with it ever since. The thing I really love about Sonar is that it has unlimited bussing - you can just keep adding busses as you need them.

On a lot of my mixes will end up with up to 20 busses. While many of those a sub-groups (eg, Drums, guitars, vocals, keys, BG vox etc), I will often have say, 6-10 of them being send effects - both parallel compression, parallel widening & reverbs, delays etc.

[garageband]

Gotta EQ the reverb. Also, the Wet/Dry parameter adjustment on plug-in reverbs is too coarse; i.e. 9% is too little, 11% is too much and 10% isn't right, either.

[Jeronimo Mora]

I'm with Gman. I refuse to do a mix where I can't EQ my reverb send. FX tracks are also extremely useful for when you need to use the same effect on a zillion tracks, but to varying degrees. Saves a hog load CPU power.

[garww]

I'm not far enough along to use this too much in software. I'm still on the "Keep it simple, Stupid" page and save a lot for the exterrnal two buss and my couple-three pieces of hardware at mix down through 3-6(I just try to keep it down) stereo groups

"The fact that the reverb is traveling a different path to the master may have to do with its separated sound".
I'm more into this with hardware - certainly when playing with stereo width

[Stan_Halen]

I have been using them for awhile, but have been learning from guys here how to use them more and better.

This is a little off-topic, but since you mentioned Dave Pensado, I thought it was really interesting that on his last show - with Andrew Scheps as guest - Andrew stated that he uses Parallel Compression busses exclusively (if I heard him right), that he doesn't like compressor inserts on tracks. He said he didn't want to take away from the original sound of the track, just to blend a compressed version in. I think Dave was even stunned at that statement, but pleasantly surprised, and reached across the table to shake his hand.

EDIT: Found the Andrew Scheps PC statement, go to 0:30:00 and it lasts a little over a minute.
Episode 73: Engineer, Mixer, Producer Andrew Scheps | Pensado's Place

[awesome]

I do alot of work where i simply take people's projects that are already perfermed and recorded and i just go through and mix it down. When i arrive at my house with thier project i normally spend the first 20 minutes routing it all out how i want. Which isnt all that crazy but i do use my sends, returns, busses and chains. Routing is an integrated part of my mix technique. Without busses I'm paralayzed. I have no specific purpose or go to technique but whatever technique i come up with on the spot usually involves a bus either for convenience, or sonic advantages

"The fact that the reverb is traveling a different path to the master may have to do with its separated sound".
I think this is because the dry sound is still there. Not so much that there is a different path for the wet signal. When you insert on a track you have either a dry signal or a percentage of wet signal. So if you want your reverb to ring out for 2 seconds but letting it ring out for seconds compramises clarity, it's nice to have that completely dry tone to add back to the mix. That way you can keep your reverb turned up and still hear 2 seconds worth of verb. I think in everyway it basically lets you use/abuse your plug ins a little more. Cuz the dry tone is right there to help ya mask the processed sound.

Besides all that baloney it just makes my screen look cool cuz i got 100 freakin faders and meters bouncing. Also while i'm routing folks projects the way i like, it gives me a solid 10 runs through the song where i just listen and listen and listen. Then by the time it's routed out, my brain is ready to do something productive.

Now when i record a song or see a project from start to finish myself, i just route it as i go and my mix always sounds like absolute dog sh#t untill i wait like a week and remix it.

[bozmillar]

I couldn't survive without buses, and after switching to reaper where multi-layer buses became simple, I bus into buses into buses even for simple tracks.

[m24p]

I'm with Gman. I refuse to do a mix where I can't EQ my reverb send. FX tracks are also extremely useful for when you need to use the same effect on a zillion tracks, but to varying degrees. Saves a hog load CPU power.

I have Reaper set up so I can recall an insert effects chain that lets me EQ the reverb as an insert. Works for me. I like messing with the predelay and other reverb parameters individually so I often do this instead of a reverb send.

(You could think of it as a send contained within the track itself)

[paul999]

If I am using stock reverbs I am more likely to not use bussing. I'll make a reverb track for a source and eq compress or do whatever it takes to make it work. With high quality f/x much less needs to be done therefore the same reverb settings on different sorces work making bussing an option.

[brandondrury]

For me the automation capabilities with time-based effects are a must. It's possible to do it via inserts, but it feels like more work to me.

Brandon

[m24p]

For me the automation capabilities with time-based effects are a must. It's possible to do it via inserts, but it feels like more work to me.

Brandon

That sounds weird to me. If it's not super easy to automate your inserts, we have a problem.

[redworks]

i like to mix it up but i don't know what i am doing for the most part. i do like that feel and flow of using a buss. it just seems to give me more options especially with controlling the eq on the effects. also sonar has the prochannel on every buss and it is so handy to use for the effects. thanks for posting this really i am more interested in what people say than saying anything.

[brandondrury]

If it's not super easy to automate your inserts, we have a problem.

We have a problem, then. Maybe "super easy" isn't the word. Maybe "most efficient" is what I'm looking for in regard to time. I get a knot in my spine anytime I feel a task is taking longer than it should and that applies to even just a few seconds. It's the life style I've chosen, I guess.

Let's say I have a mix like July's Slate Digital Cup. I have a vocal in the center, one on the left, one of the right, and some harmonies. I'd put the left and right on their own bus anyway, most likely. When I want to crank up the reverb level of the left and right, it's a single line of automation sending more reverb on that on line and then yanking it back down. Done. That took 3 seconds.

If I used reverb inserts, I could do the same thing. I'd have to grab the mix knob and turn it up via automation. No biggie, but I would have to guess a bit on the amount because of the level change. Then the reverb would get louder but the dry signal would be softer. Then I'd have to boost the level of dry signal via automation. Then I'd have to adjust the mix again and then adjust the level again. That's 9 seconds for a 3 second job. I'm already only going to get 5 hours of sleep tonight.

---

The other major factor is being able to EQ those reverbs separately from the dry signal. Some reverb plugins are awesome in their filter and EQ options. Some have virtually zero. I'd imagine people using a lot of inserts are using reverbs with quite a bit of control on the plugin itself.

I compress reverb frequently these days. (A trick I'm liking quite a bit here lately, actually.) I've not encountered a reverb with a compressor on it.

Ultimately, this is a workflow issue and there is no wrong way to do it. I just have my tendencies that I can stand most of the time.

Brandon

[aj113]

.....If I used reverb inserts, I could do the same thing. I'd have to grab the mix knob and turn it up via automation. No biggie, but I would have to guess a bit on the amount because of the level change. Then the reverb would get louder but the dry signal would be softer. Then I'd have to boost the level of dry signal via automation. Then I'd have to adjust the mix again and then adjust the level again. ....

I'm struggling to understand this. If you want to 'crank up the reverb level' then surely the reverb IS going to get louder and the dry signal IS going to get softer? That's what 'crank up the reverb level' means doesn't it? If you took the dry signal up along with the reverb this would be called 'pushing up the channel fader' wouldn't it? Or did I miss something? To crank up the reverb it's a case of boosting the wet mix via automation. I can't get much super-easier than that. Again, did I miss something here?

[m24p]

No it makes sense. When Brandon wants to turn the reverb up, he wants the dry signal to stay the same. Not all reverbs have a dry fader and a wet fader. (In fact, my favorite one doesn't.) So it's just an easier workflow to have it separate.

[aj113]

.....Not all reverbs have a dry fader and a wet fader.....

So how does that work then? The reverb is 100% wet and it's up to the user how to feed that back to the dry signal?

[m24p]

So how does that work then? The reverb is 100% wet and it's up to the user how to feed that back to the dry signal?

Usually if they don't have a separate dry fader and wet fader they have a mix %. Usually when Brandon is automating reverb he only wants to affect the wet level, and if his only knob is a mix knob, it gets complicated.

[John Lance]

I compress reverb frequently these days. (A trick I'm liking quite a bit here lately, actually.) I've not encountered a reverb with a compressor on it. Brandon

I think a lot of 80's stuff had compressed verb, at least on the drum kit. You can do things with the length of the room sound, and the attack, and the levels just after the attack, and it all just sits in place... and the decay can sound more like a gate is utilised.

Been bussing for years, even on live sound consoles where it is likely even more necessary to conserve resources and have subgrouped sections for quick group level control.

Doing pre-eq and predelay buses into a final reverb bus can really extend that one reverb, and make it sound like many different aspects of the same space. I'll even pre-eq a delay or chorus for utilisation for other items if that same chorus or delay is needed, rather than pull up another instance.

[the evil]

So how does that work then? The reverb is 100% wet and it's up to the user how to feed that back to the dry signal?

Thats exactly what the fx bus is for. Say you have your vocal part and you want to increase the amount of reverb. You just have to automate the fx bus fader. Done. There is no wet/ dry or mix percentage, you just increase or decrease the fader just like you would for anything else.

I guess you could also send say vocal A to a group channel and to an fx channel and apply the reverb amount. Then send the reverb to that group channel as well and control them together in one channel, keeping the wet/ dry mix the same but being able to automate the total output volume of the combined tracks. I do this a lot. I would rather write one automation track instead of multiple.

[BenJaMan]

ABSOLUTELY a must. i guess it stems from when i first started i had only one fx module... set the verb on 100% wet and use the sends to control ammount of verb, delay, etc. i still use this technique to bring cohesivity/cohesion (are those words? you follow me) ... basically bring different elements into the same "space"

+ the ability to EQ the fx
+ you can compress the track(s) but the verb stays fluid

now if i want to apply a special or unique one to JUST one track i MIGHT use an insert, but my default project setup has multiple effect busses... select one and then apply as needed via sends to balance the rest

[garageband]

I guess you could also send say vocal A to a group channel and to an fx channel and apply the reverb amount.

Sometimes I end up with this if I'm comping a bunch of takes. All take tracks run to an AUX, which in turn feeds a reverb AUX.

[gruzina]

FX buss is essential IMO...
especially if you have a slow machine , think about it , putting reverb/delay on 20 channels , or only 1 channel and feed it back to the tracks as needed?
I got few templets that I have created based on the type of the production needed for the project , and usually I start with 3 buss for 3 reverb types (room-off a like, hall, bizarre big space reverb) and 2-3 delay buss (1/8 note , 1/16 & 1/8T)
it make it a lot easier to handle the project and save some CPU power for more important things....
also if you will put too many kinds of reverb in your project , it would sound colored unevenly and will create chaos ...
but this is only my approach .

[Nanowire]

Coming from an old school all hardware environment it is an absolute no brainer to use FX busses in Cubase too. I only rarely use something on the track itself unless I am absolutely sure it will be for that specific track only (because of individual settings or so) and parameters like the mix of FX/dry can be handled within the plugin. Even guitar amp simulations go into FX busses. The source track can then send its signal to various amps: a virtual Billy Gibbons re-amping session. Also, like Brandon says, it is easier to EQ and compress a reverb when in a buss.

[Gibsonman63]

Every mix I do has at least a few aux busses. I like it on doubled tracks when I use time based effects, like doubled guitars with the same flanger effect. It's also nice to have the same reverb on all of the backing vocals. To me it helps blend things together better than have individual effects for each track and it saves some processing power. For vocal effects, it is nice to be able to pull down delays and reverbs for quieter passages.

Your results may vary.