Question on AUX Sends for Mixing/Mastering on a DAW

robj144 · #1 08-01-2019, 03:07 PM

I've used DAWs for a while but am self taught in mixing. I don't use AUX sends or buses much. I sometimes do buses to group tracks with similar effects, but I seldom use AUX sends.

Can someone tell me what the difference is between using an AUX send and just copy and pasting a track to double it? It seems like the same thing to me. There must be a benefit to AUX send though. Maybe hardware overhead as in less CPU load?

I usually just double the track by copying it into another regular track.

jim1960 · #2 08-01-2019, 08:05 PM

When you duplicate a track, you're also going to have to duplicate whatever plugins you've used on that track. That puts an additional load on your computer. On top of that, if you're using that extra track for reverb or delay, you'll have to duplicate any tweaks you might do to that track on the extra track, otherwise you're not really performing reverb or delay on the same thing.

Another benefit is when you want to apply the same thing to a bunch of tracks. Suppose you have six harmony vocal tracks and you want to apply the same reverb to all of them. You can put a reverb on each track and use up all that processing power and adjust each reverb, or you can send the six tracks to a bus and apply/adjust the reverb once and be done.

Now this stuff might not be a big issue to contend with if all you're mixing is a fingerstyle guitar piece but once you start adding in vocals, bass, keys, and other things that you might find in an arrangement, your method can become a bit like wrestling an alligator.

Bottom line: Once you learn how to do it, creating an aux track takes no more time than duplicating a track and it saves a LOT of time during mixing.

keith.rogers · #3 08-01-2019, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robj144

I've used DAWs for a while but am self taught in mixing. I don't use AUX sends or buses much. I sometimes do buses to group tracks with similar effects, but I seldom use AUX sends.

Can someone tell me what the difference is between using an AUX send and just copy and pasting a track to double it? It seems like the same thing to me. There must be a benefit to AUX send though. Maybe hardware overhead as in less CPU load?

I usually just double the track by copying it into another regular track.

One big reason to use them is to conserve resources when you might use the same plugin on several tracks, especially something like reverb. I might have a reverb that I create for instruments, and everything gets sent to that aux/bus, and I simply vary the amount sent to adjust the amount of reverb on the individual tracks.

Doubling the track, as mentioned, means you have to double the plugins, and then if you subsequently decide to change the EQ on a track, you have to match that on the other track, plus any plugins you put on the duplicate risk introducing some phase/comb-filtering artifacts.

robj144 · #4 08-02-2019, 01:23 AM

Thanks for the replies. I figured it out tonight when fooling around.

I still have a question though. I'm using Samplitude, but I'm pretty sure it's the same concept for any DAW. When I create an AUX and put say reverb on it and send say a few tracks to that AUX with varying levels, I here the different levels of reverb in the mix which is great. However, that AUX also has a fader and increasing the fader increases the absolute level of reverb, but it also increases the volume of another "wet" track to the entire mix which is the AUX track. This takes away from the loudness headroom in the overall mix. Is there a way to mute the track to just get reverb (or the effect on the AUX) and not another "wet" track of all tracks fed into the AUX? If the AUX is muted, no output or effect comes out the way I'm doing it now.

MikeBmusic · #5 08-02-2019, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robj144

Thanks for the replies. I figured it out tonight when fooling around.

I still have a question though. I'm using Samplitude, but I'm pretty sure it's the same concept for any DAW. When I create an AUX and put say reverb on it and send say a few tracks to that AUX with varying levels, I here the different levels of reverb in the mix which is great. However, that AUX also has a fader and increasing the fader increases the absolute level of reverb, but it also increases the volume of another "wet" track to the entire mix which is the AUX track. This takes away from the loudness headroom in the overall mix. Is there a way to mute the track to just get reverb (or the effect on the AUX) and not another "wet" track of all tracks fed into the AUX? If the AUX is muted, no output or effect comes out the way I'm doing it now.

If you are using a BUS for reverb, it should be 100% wet. Volume slider should be at '0' (unity). Use the AUX send sliders to control how much volume from each track is going to the reverb Bus (clue: you need a lot less than you'd think).

keith.rogers · #6 08-02-2019, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robj144

Thanks for the replies. I figured it out tonight when fooling around.

I still have a question though. I'm using Samplitude, but I'm pretty sure it's the same concept for any DAW. When I create an AUX and put say reverb on it and send say a few tracks to that AUX with varying levels, I here the different levels of reverb in the mix which is great. However, that AUX also has a fader and increasing the fader increases the absolute level of reverb, but it also increases the volume of another "wet" track to the entire mix which is the AUX track. This takes away from the loudness headroom in the overall mix. Is there a way to mute the track to just get reverb (or the effect on the AUX) and not another "wet" track of all tracks fed into the AUX? If the AUX is muted, no output or effect comes out the way I'm doing it now.

I might be confused by what you posted, but in general, I never tinker with the fader on a AUX that's really just an FX return kind of track, but adjust the sends going to it. Regardless, its fader should only be adjusting the level of what's going through the plugin(s) on it, and you can mute everything else to hear that.

For a reverb aux (e.g.), if that plugin has a mix control, I'll set it so that there's only the reverb being passed on to the main/stereo bus, i.e., there is no "dry" component of what's being sent to the AUX going into the master bus.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jT...1GGKOEmo2MFYBY

P.S. You can probably control how the Send itself works on the original track. In Logic, I can check whether I want the send to be Post Pan (and Fader), Post or Pre Fader. Your DAW probably has similar options.

AndyZ · #7 08-06-2019, 01:06 PM

First time poster here... so hey!

While it pretty much has been covered here re: the differences, I'll add to what Keith had mentioned regarding introducing phasing issues. You may be able to adjust for phase issues by inverting it on a copied track, but never one of my fave things to do except in a last ditch resort on a mix.

If you a duping a track to account for a double, it never works right. Best to play the part until it's a good performance match.

But if you ever have to double a part, because it's almost impossible to play it that close (like in the case of a vocal part that just can't be recreated), this will work in a pinch. On the duplicated track slide or shift the waveform ahead 830 samples which will probably be in the order of around +/- 10 ms. This will work and I've done in a pinch when I've gotten records to mix, that need some extra doubling, whether it be for other effects or just to give equal L/R audio support.

KevWind · #8 08-06-2019, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robj144

Thanks for the replies. I figured it out tonight when fooling around.

I still have a question though. I'm using Samplitude, but I'm pretty sure it's the same concept for any DAW. When I create an AUX and put say reverb on it and send say a few tracks to that AUX with varying levels, I here the different levels of reverb in the mix which is great. However, that AUX also has a fader and increasing the fader increases the absolute level of reverb, but it also increases the volume of another "wet" track to the entire mix which is the AUX track. This takes away from the loudness headroom in the overall mix. Is there a way to mute the track to just get reverb (or the effect on the AUX) and not another "wet" track of all tracks fed into the AUX? If the AUX is muted, no output or effect comes out the way I'm doing it now.

To clarify what has been said a bit further.

Creating an Aux return track and placing a Reverb on it and sending a signal to that Aux track is called using reverb in "parallel". That is to say the original audio track (that you are sending from) is passing a completely dry signal to it's outputs and (as noted the reverb plugin should be set to 100% wet) And the Aux track is sending a 100% wet signal out its outputs -- thus "parallel" signals going to the main outs

So if you are sending from only "one" track then you should set that send to -0- db (or unity gain) and then reduce the fader on the Aux track to get the desired amount of wet/dry overall mix of reverb effect.

If you are sending "multiple" tracks then (as others have noted ) you set the Aux track Fader to -0- db (unity gain) and bring down the various sends to get the desired mix effect .

If you want more effect then raise the send level on the individual tracks not the level of the AUX track because as you noted you are then using up more overall mix headroom.

If I am understanding the muting thing
If you wish to audition the reverb effect on just one of the multiple tracks going to parallel Aux track
You have a couple options :
#1 you can simply mute the other audio tracks with sends to the reverb and hear the FX on the one track in isolation.
#2 If you want to hear the the other tracks but just the verb on one track (in context) then if the sends on the tracks you do not want to hear the verb on, have mutes use them, if not just (note where you have them set ) and pull the faders or level control all the way down .

Hopes this make sense , Kev

rick-slo · #9 08-06-2019, 04:41 PM

Personally I keep everything on one stereo track, partly since I am just recording solo guitar. Also I like to mix the sequence of effects I use to see what order sounds the best. There is pre FX and post FX options but that does not address that issue.

Bob Womack · #10 08-06-2019, 05:04 PM

Perhaps a little history could help:

In the Jurassic age of recording studios, when we (or at least I) mixed on hardware mixing consoles, effects weren't cheap, so we had to share them between sounds. They also weren't smart: Early on you sent the sound of your guitar to the reverb tank or plate or foil and ALL THAT CAME OUT WAS THE EFFECT. That was right down to an echo device. You put in the sound and out came ONE echo. If you wanted more echoes you had to do what was called "spin," meaning you took the output of the echo into an effects input that had a knob called "spin" that fed it back out a dedicated sub-auxiliary that fed back into the auxiliary that fed the front end of the effect for more echos. You can still see those spin knobs on classic API desks to this day. But I digress.

Eventually guitar pedal manufacturers began making in-line effects with a mixer to allow both the dry signal and the effect to be fed through in-line. Ah-hah! In the late '80s effect manufacturers decided to enclose all these features into their effects, allowing BOTH methods to be used.

So now, if we place an effect inline via an insert we use the wet/dry control ON THE EFFECT to the mix between effect and dry signal. If we use a send-return model for an effect we turn the wet/dry control to the full wet position, thus preventing any dry from passing the effect return input.

And "spin"? You'll find that under the name "regen" or "feedback" on individual effects. For some reason, probably to reduce console complexity, that function migrated from the console to the effect.

DAWs simply reproduce the architecture of the previous mixing consoles and effects.

Bob