I've used the VC64 Channel strip on many a buss with great results

Bristol_Jonesey
The only thing I would change would be the destination from your Fx buss - route that one to your master buss

OK, but the reason I didn't is because if I mute the vocal bus, the effects from the vocals are still present at the master output.  Maybe i am still doing something wrong?

Adq
I find it's better to use mix buses and stem buses. For example separate buses for lead vocal, backs, vocal fxs go to Vocal stem bus and then to master. Separate buses for SD, HH, other drums go to Drums stem bus. And so on.

This sounds good and I think I am starting to do this as I have made separate buses for all instruments, Drums, back vocals, etc.
 
I am not sure what a stem bus is, could you please explain?  Thanks

Razorwit
Hi fads,
One quick note: unless you're doing some kind of parallel processing, the VC-64, compressor, and probably HF Exciter likely should be insert FX as opposed to sends. Those are generally 100% wet effects so using a send is the wrong choice there unless you're doing something in parallel.
 
Dean

Hi Dean, thanks for the input.  By insert FX, does that mean it goes on each channel then?  I am not sure what parallel processing means.
 
Thanks

fads
I am not sure what a stem bus is, could you please explain?  Thanks

You can find some info by googling "stem mixing".
As I understand it, there are some "final" buses (not many, usually ~8) and sound goes to master only from them, not from tracks, or from other buses.
 
Tracks            Buses                Stems               Master
VocalMain1     VocalMain          Vocal                
VocalMain2     VocalBack
VocalMain3     VocalReverb
VocalBack1
VocalBack2
VocalBack3
 
Stems              Mix                      Master
Vocal               (additional bus  
Guitars             for more control)
Synths
Basses
BD
Drums
 

Getting back to that insert FX that Dean mentioned.  Dean said, One quick note: unless you're doing some kind of parallel processing, the VC-64, compressor, and probably HF Exciter likely should be insert FX as opposed to sends.
 
Should that be on each channel then.  I use the VC-64 on all of the vocals.  I like the way it sounds,  but maybe there is a better way.
 
Thanks again

Hi fads,
It doesn't matter if those FX are on channels or buses, the distinction is whether they are Send FX or Inserts. When you route to an FX send you are sending copy of the signal to a bus and it will eventually be mixed back into the original. So you'll end up hearing both the original AND the output of the effect. That works fine for some effects like reverb or delay, but generally speaking for effects like compression and EQ we only want to hear the output of the effect. For example, if I put an EQ on a signal to remove some unwanted frequencies, I want to use that as an insert instead of a send, because if I end up hearing a combination of the original signal and the effected signal I didn't really remove that unwanted frequency. Same thing applies to compression, de-essing, and (usually) to HF exciters.
 
The exception here is parallel processing. A common technique is to take an signal/track and use a send to create a duplicate of that signal (a "parallel path") which you then use heavy effects on and mix back into the original. Do a bit of research on New York Style compression for a good example.
 
Dean
 
 

Razorwit
Hi fads,
It doesn't matter if those FX are on channels or buses, the distinction is whether they are Send FX or Inserts. When you route to an FX send you are sending copy of the signal to a bus and it will eventually be mixed back into the original. So you'll end up hearing both the original AND the output of the effect. That works fine for some effects like reverb or delay, but generally speaking for effects like compression and EQ we only want to hear the output of the effect. For example, if I put an EQ on a signal to remove some unwanted frequencies, I want to use that as an insert instead of a send, because if I end up hearing a combination of the original signal and the effected signal I didn't really remove that unwanted frequency. Same thing applies to compression, de-essing, and (usually) to HF exciters.
 
The exception here is parallel processing. A common technique is to take an signal/track and use a send to create a duplicate of that signal (a "parallel path") which you then use heavy effects on and mix back into the original. Do a bit of research on New York Style compression for a good example.
 
Dean
 
 

Thanks Dean, great information.  I now have a much better understanding what is going on with the signals.  Thanks so much for taking the time to be so clear and explaining in detail.  I will check the parallel processing, and the New York Style compression.  It sounds like a great tool to use.
 
Frank

fads

Bristol_Jonesey
The only thing I would change would be the destination from your Fx buss - route that one to your master buss

OK, but the reason I didn't is because if I mute the vocal bus, the effects from the vocals are still present at the master output.  Maybe i am still doing something wrong?

I don't know if this would be considered "common" but I find it helpful. I route ALL of my FX Busses (typically something like...  LVox Verb, BVox Verb, L INST VERB, BG INST Verb, Glue Verb, Delay 1/4, Delay 1/8, Delay Slap etc...) to a "WET" Bus. All other tracks go to "DRY" bus. Then both of those are in turn routed to my master or sub-master BUS. This allows me to quickly A/B the DRY and DRY+WET sounds. It also allows me to mute all the DRY signals so that I can evaluate and "mix" my "space" as a separate entity without affecting any of my DRY signals. I also often split the Reverbs and Delays to  ALL VERB and ALL DELAY buses before sending them to the WET bus.
 
It sounds like you are on the right track. Just keep practicing and when you have one of those "Gee, it would be really nice or helpful if I could just do that" moments, stop and figure out a way to do it. That and use reference mixes all the time. Most people don't get just how quickly our ears adjust and our brains start lying to us about what we are hearing without something to reference.  
 
Lee

SDCyclist

fads

Bristol_Jonesey
The only thing I would change would be the destination from your Fx buss - route that one to your master buss

OK, but the reason I didn't is because if I mute the vocal bus, the effects from the vocals are still present at the master output.  Maybe i am still doing something wrong?

I don't know if this would be considered "common" but I find it helpful. I route ALL of my FX Busses (typically something like...  LVox Verb, BVox Verb, L INST VERB, BG INST Verb, Glue Verb, Delay 1/4, Delay 1/8, Delay Slap etc...) to a "WET" Bus. All other tracks go to "DRY" bus. Then both of those are in turn routed to my master or sub-master BUS. This allows me to quickly A/B the DRY and DRY+WET sounds. It also allows me to mute all the DRY signals so that I can evaluate and "mix" my "space" as a separate entity without affecting any of my DRY signals. I also often split the Reverbs and Delays to  ALL VERB and ALL DELAY buses before sending them to the WET bus.
 
It sounds like you are on the right track. Just keep practicing and when you have one of those "Gee, it would be really nice or helpful if I could just do that" moments, stop and figure out a way to do it. That and use reference mixes all the time. Most people don't get just how quickly our ears adjust and our brains start lying to us about what we are hearing without something to reference.  
 
Lee

Hi Lee, thanks for the detailed explanation.  That sounds like a plan.  I will put it to work.
Frank