[Solved] Loss of volume

Complicated one but I'll try keep it simple.  
1>  Mixed a song and exported it as a wav.  
2  > Imported that wav into a new empty project I created for mastering.  Lets call it Master Project.
3   >   If I put some effects directly onto the wav track i.e. brickwall, compressor etc and export again as a mastered track, it plays fine in ITunes , media player etc.  As in it's volume is fine. 
But....and here's where i am lost.   If i do the following.
1  > remove the effects from the track  
2   > send the track to a bus (which in turn goes to the master bus)
3   >  put the same effects on the bus as were originally on the track
4  >  Export the track as my new mastered track
The volume is now only a fraction of what it is if i put the effects directly on the track.
If your wondering why i created the bus its a bit complicated but trust me there is a reason.  I can explain but lets save all the extra typing for the moment.   Any ideas guys?
thanks

Question:
When you "send" the track over to the buss is the buss volume at unity gain (0)?
Is the send volume at unity gain (0)?
I would think they'd be louder if that were the case (parallel processing).
 
Also, are you exporting as "entire mix"?

Oh Arlen...no I was exporting as a track..not using the option export entire project.
 
 

Hi B.  well in a way.  In one case i exported with the effect directly ont he track.  But in the second case i removed the effects and instead used a "send" to a bus and put the effects there.
But the good news is....well done to Arlen who hit the nail on the head.  he asked if i was exporting "entire mix".   I wasn't using this option but was exporting just the track.   When i used the option "entire mix" it solved the problem.    Thanks guys for the replies and MAJOR thanks to Arlen.
So... I've learned something here.  I never realised that just exporting the track didn't include any buses it was sent to.   A bit of a strange setting but hey... I didn't design the DAW.
But good to know for future reference.
Thanks again all....super help as always from y'alls.  

Agentcalm
 
So... I've learned something here.  I never realised that just exporting the track didn't include any buses it was sent to.   A bit of a strange setting but hey... Thanks again all....super help as always from y'alls.  

This function is useful when you want to do an export of just tracks.  Like when you're going to share the project or when you only want to work with audio stems (lots of people do when mixing down)...
More useful than you think.

ya got me Arlen    
Hey Skook, yeah i hear ya but.....in case youre wondering why i had it set up like this.  I'm doing a beginners course to mastering and the module we are on involves setting up different buses.  I wont bore ya with the details but trust me...it was part of a project we were doing.  

tlw
Are you using a send from the track to the bus, or is the bus set as the track's output?

Just curious, because if the former then you'll be getting parallel processing (raw track plus the processed version from the bus) into the master bus. Which seems a bit odd for mastering purposes.

 
This was my immediate thought as well. Do you really want to be sending to a bus (i.e. mixing the original track with the signal processed by the bus) or do you want to route the track to a bus? Huge difference. 

I'll answer here, no problem.
 
Generally speaking (and there are always exceptions or special cases), you would activate your Sends when you want to blend the original, dry track with an efffected version, applying processes like Reverb or Delay which are Busses with the appropriate Fx plugin.
 
Outputs will normally be routed to their own buss. for example, i will route all of my drum tracks to a drum bus, vocals to a vocal bus and so on. Each individual buss then OUTPUTS to the Master Buss.
 
Now if you want all your vocal tracks to have a little bit of reverb on them, you would first of all create your Reverb Buss (OUTPUT to MASTER). Now you can activate the SENDS on each Vocal track and adjust how much of each track is sent via the send level control.
 
It's important in this scenario that your Reverb plugin is set to 100% wet. Some plugins have separate controls dor Dry/Wet, others have some sort of slider but whatever option is available, you want to totally kill any Dry element as your mix is already getting this from the Track Outputs.

So would it be fair to say Colin ( and again I appreciate this might be a generalization) that you would use the "output" option to direct tracks to a bus that was not going have effects on it.  As in the reverb example you mention.   So you would only be using that "dry" bus to do a single volume control of all vocals or drums.   The "send" option is used if you want to use effects.
I assume of course, you could also use the "output" option and use effects also.  In that scenario I am guessing that you would not be mixing the dry track with the effects copy of the track on the bus?   Sorry if that is all getting messy :( 

Perhaps the easiest way to think of a send is that it's a signal splitter that lets you "send" the track (or bus) not only to its own output but also to somewhere else at the same time.

Back before DAWs when everything was done in hardware studios only had a certain amount of kit. A big studio like Abbey Road might have had a lot of kit, but even EMI didn't have dozens of every bit of hardware.

So let's say you have recorded a band, drums, bass, guitar, vocals back in the 1970s. You decide that some, but not all, tracks would benefit from some reverb but different tracks need different amounts.

You could pay out and obtain as many individual bulky and expensive reverb units as required to put one on the input of every track between tape machine and mixer. Very expensive and a hassle.

Or you could plug a single reverb unit into the mixer so it received input from an auxiliary (aux) bus and sent it's ouputs to mixer inputs. The aux busses being ones that each track could 'send' to using potentiometers in the track channel strip. In other words, they let you split the signal and send it to not only the track output but the input of another bus. If you look at a picture of almost any analogue mixer you'll usually be able to spot aux send pots in the channels.

By setting the reverb 100% wet you could then control how much reverb got applied to each track by adjusting the send controls on each track. The benefit being you only needed one reverb unit and because all tracks went through the same reverb they'd sound like they were in the same acoustic "space".

Nowadays computers are powerful enough to run lots of plugins, a decade ago that wasn't the case so sends were used in DAWs like analogue mixers to reduce cpu load.

So why keep them now? Partly because they're a good way to insert delays and reverbs where you want a similar "feel" on all the relevant tracks. Sends also have creative applications for parallel processing, where you want a signal without a specific effect and the same signal with that effect. They are also very useful, especially if set pre-fader so their volume in unaffected by the track fader, when you need to send several different monitor mixes to different musicians/singers or e.g. give a singer a monitor mix with reverb but can't use track echo because the latency is an issue for the performer.