I've recently checked out Pro Tools just for fun. There's a function they have that we don't, and I'm wondering why they have it.
 
If they create an "AUX" track to create a submix or insert a parralel effect - they have to use what they call a BUS in between. So:
 
Tracks/sends -> Bus 1 -> Aux Track
or if Stereo
Tracks/sends -> Bus 1 & 2 -> Aux Track
 
In Sonar we just go
 
Tracks/sends -> Bus
or if Stereo
Tracks/Sends -> Stereo Bus
 
I thing what they call AUX tracks, we call Bus tracks.
 
SO why do they have to use (what they call) buses in between tracks and "AUX" tracks? Is there an advantage to that which we can't take advantage of? I'm so confused and feel like I'm missing a concept in mixing in general which might be crippling me. Either that or I have another thing to brag about in Sonar :-)
 
Gavin

Hi. This (I believe) is one of the forthcoming features implemented / under development in future / new releases of SONAR 2015.
Best of luck.

Bussing is simply a way of grouping things...

Youre doing this in PT as well...

A bus is a place that can carry many items just like passengers in a real bus...

You can use it to subgroup tracks or for creating parallel paths for fx such as reverbs and what have you.

I think the terminology is getting you...

If you route a send to a bus/aux youre creating a separate splitoff of the main signal which continues to its assigned output... You then have it return to your main out and it becomes additive to the signal going to the track's actual output...

Alternatively you can route the output of tracks to a bus/aux which can then be a grouping to say be a group output... Fir example sending multitrack drums to a bus/aux to act as a drum kit master...

Keni

Functionally is not different, but since they then feed a "track" it may have been a simpler way to implent recording a buss. Never used PT, so mere speculation. In some DAWs busses themselves are considered tracks as well.

But a bus and a track are functionally different things...

Electronically in the real world, one has a mic preamp and the other has a summing amp. Yes, they are both amplifiers of a sort, but very different.

In the physical world of consoles, you can place these where you like as it's the wiring underneath that determines the signal path.

Yes, in the digital world it's easy to place them all together.. And I understand a number of reasons people wish to do this... I have no personal objection to its availability though I wouldn't want such... Most of the consoles I've worked on have had the aux returns and the subgroups located separately from the inputs and I'm very comfortable with that...

But if you wish to do this in the hear and now you can use silktone's SideChainMixer and use a track as an aux/bus...

Here's a link to where you can download a copy. A drive space maintained I believe by mudgel...

https://onedrive.live.com...key=%21AHGSVIHEsaTCkqo

Keni

In Sonar's code, tracks and busses are no different. It's only when we get to the GUI that there's an apparent difference.

The OP is talking about the extra layer, the "aux" that is created. Logic (at least 9) does this as well. When you send something to a bus, the bus is coupled to an aux. Off the top of my head I can't think of any benefit to that. In Logic it may follow from the environment objects needed.

The AUX in PT is no different than the Bus in Sonar. The cosmetic difference is that the aux track can be put anywhere in the track pane. Busses in Sonar can only be put in the buss/master pane.
Personally I would welcome the AUX in the track pane.

I think it really could be thought of as bussing to an aux or subgroup....

The counterpoint is the request to route tracks to other tracks (as busses) in SONAR (hence Silktone's SideChainMixer).