My set up is usually to route each (or most) tracks to a buss as required which then goes to the master buss.  I find it handy to be able to use the waveform preview on the busses to get a visual on how the track looks after compression etc.
Could someone clarify this for me though?
If I have a mono, solo vocal track, should I route it to a stereo buss before applying compression, eq etc. I usually do route the solo vocal track to a stereo buss because I've never been clear on the use of the stereo interleave button. (I know that it's still a mono track as such, but often wonder if I should have the 'stereo interleave' button on in the mono track ... whether it makes any difference in the way Sonar handles the track going into a stereo effect insert on the track)
Apart from that though, I route the vocal track to a buss because I can, for example, do volume automation and initial eq settings on the original vocal track and then mostly work with busses thereafter for parallel compression, effects sends and the likes. I find it helps for screen space, that you end up mixing mostly with the busses on view.

(1) Working forwards from the tracks:
-- I direct the track output to a bus


(2) Working backwards from the master: 
 -- I feed the master only instrument busses (e.g. guitars bus, vocals bus, drums bus, etc.).

Sometimes the output of (1) and input of (2) are one and the same, but often I will have intermediary busses (such as a Tom bus, or an Acoustic Guitar bus and a separate Electric Guitar bus).  This is where I get creative depending on the needs of the project;  sometimes with compressors or eq's occurring in-between on those busses, or even reverb, etc.  I use Sends only very occasionally, but that's just me.

What I like about my setup for (2) is that I can easily generate a set of bus stems that are "final" components of the overall mix.  This means that (1) must always be in place for this to happen.  I'll set it up this way even on an easy project where the busses are somewhat redundant, because I find it easier to switch quickly from project to project knowing that this setup is in place no matter what.

sometimes a premaster bus to compress everything but the drums, route (or send) drums (partially) to masterbus directly, to keep dynamics.
like to keep my masterbus free of effects so I can have dry portion there.

John

Beepster


After seeing how routing is done in Pro Tools I am very happy with the way things work in Sonar. Sure there could be a little extra flexibility but the PT way just seems crazy/unnecessarily confusing to me. I like having a the very defined and obvious difference between tracks and busses in Sonar. Mind you I've never worked with analog aside from little cassette based multi trackers so I'm assuming PT is a little more similar to how things used to be in older studios.

I have used analog mixers and they are not very flexible. I prefer digital mixers and they also have flexibility problems. Most mixers have a set number of buses. I'm not too sure about the  remark about analog consoles from WDI. I suppose that the very expensive ones may have that ability. None of the ones one would use in a project studio or at home in general have that ability. Most mixers describe in their name the amount of tracks and buses they support. 

John, what are we talking about here? I specifically referred to the ability of analog consoles to route tracks to multiple buses at once. You can do this in sonar using sends. But generally you have the ability to do this by assigning the track output to multiple buses, not just one. The whole analog comparison is kind of silly I know as Sonar is a lot different in many regards. But at the same time it really seams that's what the Sonar console is modeled after. And it would be nice to have this ability. Is it needed? No! Would it be nice? I think so. 

I have most - if not all - tracks sent to busses - grouped by like instruments. 
Occasionally, 1-off tracks go direct to Master.

Track sends for FX like verb or delay if the same FX is being used by more than 1 track.
Single track FX - specific comps, different EQs, etc, get their own FX Chain in the PC or Bin, then bussed (and sent when applicable).

Busses resolve to Master.

Just used to doing it that way, so it's just my normal workflow.
 

like most I too go tracks to instrument busses to master
I also have my click sent to a buss and direct to output (missing the master buss) allowing for better levels and control during playback/recording.
Sends run to FX busses which fed to the master
will also run a send or two off the master to busses with compressors running the output, when I need to do some parrallel compression

- Any track where I want to preserve transients will go direct to Mains. Sends to busses will be added as required.
- Most tracks go to a group buss for the instrument group they are in.
- There are various levels of busses which are the group busses above, fx buss, parallel eq and compression busses most of these can go to a final set of Master busses divided into music, bass, drums, vocals. These final 4 will go to the mains.

So I can have a group drum buss which is fed by drum tracks that can have parallel eq or compression busses. Then all of this rolls up into a Master Drum buss which contains everything before hitting the main buss.

The same method applies to the music, bass and vocal i.e. all BGV vocals and main vocals have their own group buss which feeds a final Master Vocal Buss which feeds the Mains.

This method allows easy level setting of the various component Master Busses or special FX treatment at that level for width, middle scoop, Room fx, etc.

Risking the possibility of becoming a thread killer once again, I offer you a different approach.
Below are quotes from my own posts in another thread, and there's definitely a merit in routing tracks directly to the master bus.
Note: This is a busy man's approach (or rather a songwriter's approach) and thus not recommended for everyone.  

Because, for example, if you want to apply the same delay (same plugin, same delay time, same feedback amount, etc.) to both the lead vocal and the lead guitar (but not to background vocals and rhythm guitars), you'll have to create two effect buses and insert exactly the same delay plug with the same settings to each of the buses, and then route one of them to the vocal bus and the other to the guitar bus, because if you route them to the master bus, the balance between the dry sound and the wet sound won't be the same when you adjust the volume faders of the lead vocal/guitar tracks. 

if you just think it would be convenient to adjust the volumes of multiple instruments with a single fader, I suggest a better way, which is simply grouping all volume faders of tracks of the same instruments (group all volume faders of all guitar tracks, for example). 

To give you a better example, you might want to use only one instance each of three reverbs (e.g. room, plate and spring reverbs), two delays (short and long delays) and one chorus plugin to make the setup simple, and want to apply them to different tracks (room reverb to distortion guitar, organ and bass, plate reverb to lead guitar and some synths, and spring reverb to lead vocal and clean guitar, long delay to lead vocal and lead guitar, chorus to clean guitar and electric piano, etc.), this volume fader grouping approach can achieve it quite easily (and you can adjust the tracks' volume levels separately by holding Ctrl while tweaking the desired fader, which is why I said "why not take the advantage?"). 

I consider this approach more flexible, and the only bus I set up now is the drum bus (to apply saturation, mild, total compression, etc.). But what approach to use really depends on the user and the project, so just take this approach as one option that could be of help. 

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2831046

If you're wondering about collision between volume fader grouping and each volume automation, you can instead use clip automation or the Gain parameter for volume automation, or group the gain parameters of tracks you want to group for total volume control.

Sonar offers many features and options, hence many ideas.