'Mix buss' versus 'Master'

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/02 04:11:00 (permalink)
Do whatever works for you. That's the beauty of digital: it's actually pretty hard to f*ck it up too badly.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#31
Rob[at]Sound-Rehab
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2819
  • Joined: 2011/02/03 04:31:35
  • Location: Sound-Rehab, Austria
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/02 06:08:56 (permalink)
John
I'm with Dave on this.




Me too.
 
I can see a reason for a separate mixbux for those guys who use ARC software in their master bus and don't want to have that printed on their exports ... but I don't use ARC or likewise ...
 
But different goals need different means to get them. Whatever works for you is fine

GOOD TUNES LAST FOREVER
  +++   Visit the Rehab   +++
 
DAW: Platinum/X3e, win10 64 bit, i7-3930K (6x3.2GHz), Asus Sabertooth X79, 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz, ATI HD 5450, 120 GB SSD OCZ Agility3, 2x 1TB WD HDD SATA 600
Audio-Interface: 2x MOTU 1248 AVB, Focusrite OctoPre, (Roland Octa-Capture)   Control-Surface: VS-700C 
VSTi: WAVES, NI K10u, FabFilter, IK, ... (too many really) 
#32
Zargg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10666
  • Joined: 2014/09/28 04:20:14
  • Location: Norway
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/02 06:35:52 (permalink)
I am in the "easy setup group" as well.
Besides routing instruments and voc to separate busses. (Reverbs and delays also gets separate busses) I route those directly to Master. I have Master routed to another bus (Correction), with ARC on it, and then out to mains. When exporting, I route directly from Master to mains.
All the best.

Ken Nilsen
Zargg
BBZ
Win 10 Pro X64, Cakewalk by Bandlab, SPlat X64, AMD AM3+ fx-8320, 16Gb RAM, RME Ucx (+ ARC), Tascam FW 1884, M-Audio Keystation 61es, *AKAI MPK Pro 25, *Softube Console1, Alesis DM6 USB, Maschine MkII
Laptop setup: Win 10 X64, i5 2.4ghz, 8gb RAM, 320gb 7200 RPM HD, Focusrite Solo, + *
 
#33
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/02 07:08:15 (permalink)
Rob[atSound-Rehab]
John
I'm with Dave on this.




Me too.
 
I can see a reason for a separate mixbux for those guys who use ARC software in their master bus and don't want to have that printed on their exports ... but I don't use ARC or likewise ...
 
But different goals need different means to get them. Whatever works for you is fine


I was going to say the same thing. I don't think I could have said it as well.

Best
John
#34
tagruvto
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 221
  • Joined: 2003/12/03 17:21:29
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/02 18:21:32 (permalink)
I use a Submaster and Master Buss.  
I run my reference tunes through Sample Magic  (Magic AB).
I don't want to add more compression, etc. to the already mastered reference tunes, so Sample Magic is
on the Master Buss.  Any global compression, etc. is on the Submaster.
 
If I use ARC II, it does go on the Master Buss and is the last in line.

i7-4770 CPU @3.40 GHZ
16.0 GB RAM
Widows 10   64-bit
SONAR Platinum
Focusrite Scarlett 18i20
#35
konradh
Max Output Level: -42 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3325
  • Joined: 2006/01/16 16:07:06
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/02 19:14:20 (permalink)
I don't see what purpose this would serve.  If there are no effects on the pre-Master bus, it does nothing.  If there are effects. why no just put them on Master?
 
I use subs for guitars, vocals, keyboards, drums, orchestra, etc. so I can correct overall levels without messing up all my fader movements; but those subs all go to Master.
 
Someone people may use the pre-Master bus to vary levels so they don't have to touch Master, but that wouldn't really change anything except their perception; and I would not be a fan of riding a fader on an overall mix.

Konrad
Current album and more: http://www.themightykonrad.com/

Sonar X1d Producer. V-Studio 700. PC: Intel i7 CPU 3.07GHz, 12 GB RAM. Win 7 64-bit. RealGuitar, RealStrat, RealLPC, Ivory II, Vienna Symphonic, Hollywood Strings, Electr6ity, Acoustic Legends, FabFour, Scarbee Rick/J-Bass/P-Bass, Kontakt 5. NI Session Guitar. Boldersounds, Noisefirm. EZ Drummer 2. EZ Mix. Melodyne Assist. Guitar Rig 4. Tyros 2, JV-1080, Kurzweil PC2R, TC Helicon VoiceWorks+. Rode NT2a, EV RE20. Presonus Eureka.  Rokit 6s. 
#36
interpolated
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 830
  • Joined: 2015/03/26 17:34:58
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/03 12:57:18 (permalink)
I'm starting to use a new workflow which incorporates Auxiliary tracks and Patch Points (in some way if I can find a use). Does anybody here use external outboard gear to send/return results back into Sonar?
 
I know much of this doesn't need to happen because of newer interfaces which keeps the signal flow along one cable and interface.  The thing is, you see all these producer/engineers in their $10,000 a day studio with their big consoles etc. demonstrating all these plug-ins they probably don't use in final sessions. 
 
It makes me wonder if investing so much money into all of the gear and software is counter productive. I have small needs really.
 
In fact, the next project I do I will try to use as much virtual analogue stuff as possible to see if it actually makes a difference to the final production. My remix and reconstruction of nightwalkers mainly used virtual analogue emulations in software form. So although it's a lot of extra work I think this will be my new workflow.
 
Also I started grouping fader tracks again, so the console mixer behaves more like an automated mixer.
post edited by interpolated - 2017/09/03 13:44:37

I have computer stuff.
 
https://soundcloud.com/sigmadelta
#37
olemon
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 768
  • Joined: 2011/10/27 05:35:19
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/04 11:44:54 (permalink)
Eventually, all instrument and vocal busses are routed to a bus I call Mix which is then routed to a bus I call Master which is routed to the main outs.
 
On Mix, I place global affects such as bus compression.  On Master, I typically have a metering plugin followed by the Sonarworks Ref 3 headphone plugin.  When I think I'm finished mixing I often put a maximizer first in the chain on Master too, just to hear how that sounds and to see how hard I have to hit an L2, for example.  Before exporting the mix I disable or delete the affects on Master.  I guess I could delete Master altogether, but I usually don't and when I return to tweak the mix the project is still set up.

https://www.reverbnation.com/scottholson
 
Platinum, Studio One 3 Pro, Win 10 (x64), AMD FX-8350, ASUS M5A97 R2.0, 16GB, RME UCX, Digimax DP88, Faderport 8, Revive Audio Mod Studio Channel, Vintage Audio M72, Summit Audio TLA-50, KRK Rokit 5 G2 Monitors, Guitars
 
"If you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute."
#38
SMcNamara
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 142
  • Joined: 2014/09/26 11:23:12
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/04 15:30:59 (permalink)
...wicked
I use two. All my instrument sub-group buses (Drums, Gtr, Synths, Vox...) got to a SUBMASTER bus. I usually keep this at -6dB 

 
By "keep this at -6dB" are you referring to the fader setting?  I ask because that seems to be a fair assumption, for the purpose of leaving headroom for mastering, but if the tracks/busses feeding it are "hot" then the overall signal might approach 0dB.  Thus, what do you do to maintain headroom?
 
And a second question for the group:  I see of lot of mentions about a limiter on the Master bus at -0.1, which makes sense if you're truly using Sonar for real mastering.  If not, wouldn't you want more headroom?
 
Thanks for all the help,
 
Steve

Sonar Platinum | Windows 10 64-bit | 8 cores | 16GB Ram | Focusrite Scarlett 2nd generation 18i20 interface | too many guitars, way too much software  | Presonus Eris 8 Monitors (thinking about a Presonus T8 sub!) 
#39
SMcNamara
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 142
  • Joined: 2014/09/26 11:23:12
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/04 15:47:16 (permalink)
One other thing I'll add to this discussion:
 
For fun I tried the following last night and it's (so far) helpful -- I added a third bus called "headphones" which is fed by the Master bus (temporarily).  It has a headphone reference plugin (Waves Nx system) to use while tracking and mixing as needed.  Before finalizing a track the setup is:
 
1.  The Mixing bus feeds the Master bus and contains console emulations, multiband "glue" compressor (Ozone if necessary), stuff like that.
2.  The Master bus feeds the soundcard but also has a prefader send to the Headphones bus, with the fader temporarily set at zero (to avoid sending double the signal to the soundcard).  Plugs here include a Limiter, Sample Magic A/B for reference, SPAN.  I was pleased to discovered these also work just fine with the fader set at zero (the Sonar singal flow chart was very helpful).  Here's the key:  I created a quick group for the mute buttons on the Master bus and Headphones bus, starting with one on and one off when the group was created.  That way, when I'm ready, I mute the Headphone bus, bring the Master up to zero and it sends directly to the sound card.
 
This may all prove to be too complex in the end, but I like having the Nx system available and not in the Master chain.  YMMV 
 
Steve

Sonar Platinum | Windows 10 64-bit | 8 cores | 16GB Ram | Focusrite Scarlett 2nd generation 18i20 interface | too many guitars, way too much software  | Presonus Eris 8 Monitors (thinking about a Presonus T8 sub!) 
#40
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/04 16:25:44 (permalink)
This is the only rational reason for redundant busses: when you need separate outputs. Examples include headphone mixes, using room EQ for monitoring, and routing to alternate speakers.
 
Regarding the -0.1 dB ceiling, that's only justified if you are mastering in place for CD distribution, the presumption being that listeners will be using high-quality playback systems that can easily handle any unexpected analog peaks. If you are mastering for lossy formats such as MP3, those "intersample" peaks are far more likely to occur, and listeners are far more likely to be listening on battery-powered devices that can't handle them. And of course, if you plan to have a professional master your mix, he'll likely reject anything that comes in limited to -0.1, or even -1 dB.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#41
Steve_Karl
Max Output Level: -50 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2534
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 20:53:26
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/04 21:52:49 (permalink)
bitflipper
This is the only rational reason for redundant busses: when you need separate outputs. Examples include headphone mixes, using room EQ for monitoring, and routing to alternate speakers.



"Redundant" yes.
But functional extra busses before the final "A" are quite rational and functional for others.

Steve Karl
https://soundcloud.com/steve_karl
SPLAT 2017.01
#42
Maarkr
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 488
  • Joined: 2011/12/10 09:35:33
  • Location: Maine
  • Status: offline
Re: 'Mix buss' versus 'Master' 2017/09/05 03:04:21 (permalink)
I started using a submaster or 2 bus a couple of years ago.  Sometimes I'll run some fx on the 2 bus that has most instruments, or all instruments, or everything.  I compress that bus to help glue everything going there.  I may even have the instruments on the 2 bus and use the vocals or bass going to the master as a sidechain against the 2 bus.  It just adds another layer of possibilities if I feel like using it.  I master as a separate process, even tho the mixes are mostly done for each project.  I usually have the master bus just manage limiting, dithering and output monitoring.

Maarkr
Studio: SPALT Lifetime/BL Cakewalk, Studio One 3.5, UAD, Z3ta+2, IKM, NI, Waves, iZotope, Melda, Reaper
i7 3770/Giga Z77 mobo, Win10 Pro-64 w16Gb, MOTU Ultralite MK4, Yamaha HS80M wSub, Live: PX-5S, FA-06, Roland Lucina, Epi Les Paul, Ibanez Bass, Amps, e-drums, Zoom R-16...
Latest album release, NEW! Counry Classic at http://genemaarkr.bandcamp.com/
#43
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1