How would you solve this track routing conundrum?
 
You have all the drum channels routed to a bus for combined processing of the drums via automation. You've got some creative FX on there -- distortion, filter, etc.
 
Then you have a bus w/ an EQ for the top end instruments w/ a hipass filter at 10k. You want to send a couple of synths to this EQ along w/ the hihat.
 
So the hihat needs to go through the EQ channel first, then the drum channel. I don't want to route the EQ channel to the drum bus because there's non-drums tracks on there. Both busses should route to MAIN OUT. I can't use a send because the dry signal will get mixed in.
 

cant you just use the Quad core EQ in the pro channel on the hi hat track ?
or create another bus ?
 
I wouldn't feel like you cant have too many buses.
I often have one for every sub group, every instrument section and then some for FX and other things as well.
back in the old days I used to use a bus for FX and that was it. once I started sub grouping, my out look on mixing opened wide up.

Could you could set up an aux track with the same eq settings as your top end eq buss, then route the high hat through that before sending it to the drum bus?
 
 

chuckebaby
cant you just use the Quad core EQ in the pro channel on the hi hat track ?

 
 

tenfoot
Could you could set up an aux track with the same eq settings as your top end eq buss, then route the high hat through that before sending it to the drum bus?

This is what I'm doing now, but I don't like it. Duplicating the EQ and its settings isn't a good solution. if I make a change it has to be changed everywhere, that could easily get messed up.
 

chuckebaby
I wouldn't feel like you cant have too many buses.
I often have one for every sub group, every instrument section and then some for FX and other things as well.
back in the old days I used to use a bus for FX and that was it. once I started sub grouping, my out look on mixing opened wide up.

 
I don't see how more busses helps. I'm trying to get the right signal flow to the master outs. For the hat that means it has to go through the EQ, then the drum bus.

Indeed you would need to adjust the second eq if need be, but given the routing scenario you have described I can't see any other solution. You essentially want to combine channels through your top end EQ buss and then split them again to separate busses which is not possible. 
 
FWIW I would be more inclined to make necessary adjustment to the HH on the Channel EQ. Occam's Razor applied to mixing technique:)
 
Hopefully someone else will have a solution that suits you.
 
 

No other solution seems apparent.
 
I would always do my EQ at track level as an insert  effect - putting it on a bus means you'll be running the track(s) that feed it in parallel with the track itself, effectively doubling up on the volume and also you run the risk of introducing phasing issues.
The only way around this would be to set the output channel of the track to None, but I think this is a very messy solution.
 
I'm also struggling to understand the benefit of EQ'ing your top end instruments with the exact same EQ curve.
Each instrument should & must be EQ'd seperately

Bristol_Jonesey
 
I would always do my EQ at track level as an insert  effect - putting it on a bus means you'll be running the track(s) that feed it in parallel with the track itself, effectively doubling up on the volume and also you run the risk of introducing phasing issues.
The only way around this would be to set the output channel of the track to None, but I think this is a very messy solution.
 

 
I presumed the OP is routing the entire track to the EQ/Hi pass bus rather than a parallel send Bristol Jonesey. Totally agree on the track EQ.

I would hope so, otherwise none of it makes sense.

Bristol_Jonesey
I would always do my EQ at track level as an insert  effect - putting it on a bus means you'll be running the track(s) that feed it in parallel with the track itself, effectively doubling up on the volume and also you run the risk of introducing phasing issues.

 
No, I said explicitly that this was unacceptable. The high synth and hat OUTPUTS need to route directly to the EQ bus.

Bristol_Jonesey
I'm also struggling to understand the benefit of EQ'ing your top end instruments with the exact same EQ curve.
Each instrument should & must be EQ'd seperately

 
The use case in my OP as far as one of the busses having an EQ on it is only an example. It has zero relevance to the discussion. That bus could have a delay on it instead. The point is as stated above: the tracks can't be parallel processed. The hat has to get processed through the "EQ bus", then the drum bus, then to main outs. The high synth has to through the EQ bus, then to main outs.

Notecrusher
The use case in my OP as far as one of the busses having an EQ on it is only an example. It has zero relevance to the discussion. That bus could have a delay on it instead.

Hey Notecrusher. In light of this I am a little lost as to what you are trying to achieve. Using additive fx like delays and reverbs as a bus send is very different to routing tracks through a bus in order to EQ them as a group. Are you trying to use the top end EQ bus as a parallel send the way you would paralell compression? 
 
Regardless, it seems the way you would like to achieve your initial scenario involves combining tracks for processing and then redividing them, so the short answer to your quandary is that it is impossible on any DAW without the second bus\aux with cloned EQ.