Bus track send volumes dilemma

[ashcat_lt]

Proxy tracks is an extension of the stealth idea. It works exactly the same, but it saves a lot of the channel reassignment and gives you meaningful labels on the child sends. I think it should work fine with nested structures too.

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Proxy tracks is an extension of the stealth idea. It works exactly the same, but it saves a lot of the channel reassignment and gives you meaningful labels on the child sends. I think it should work fine with nested structures too.

So can the FX tracks be outside the folder structures and in their own folder like I have all FX in an FX folder ? I just can't picture it nested on what gets routed where? Another demo ? :-)

[ashcat_lt]

Once you send from a child to the proxy (actually also a child at the same level), and the proxy to the immediate parent on "extra" channels, those will pass up to the next parent without any further intervention. They will mix with any other sends to those channels at that next parent, and will pass up to the next parent and can be sent off from the actual top-level parent to the external FX bus just the same.


I DID realize that I should have turned off the Parent send on the proxy track, though. Ooops. That's important!

Edit - I updated the original project and its screenshot, and added one with nested folders:

This whole thing really is trying to get around those two hurdles that make the original stealth send idea more awkward than we'd like.

I'll state again:
---It keeps us from having to change each individual send's channel assignment. You do that once per proxy track.
---When you look at the send on a given child track, it has a meaningful name "snare verb" (and actually could just be "verb" like the ultimate destination) rather than just "snare" and you have to open it up and see what channel it's actually sending to and then remember which of those channel pairs ultimately sends to which of your external FX buses.

We wouldn't need this at all if we could get:
---Reassign channels on multiple sends at once.
---Alias track channels with meaningful names.

Hope some of it helps somebody.

[Coachz]

I downloaded the project. It's got a verb track and a drums folder right? Not 2 levels of nesting yes ?

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by Coachz

I downloaded the project. It's got a verb track and a drums folder right? Not 2 levels of nesting yes ?

The new project also has a snare subfolder.

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

The new project also has a snare subfolder.

Thanks ashcat_lt. I appreciate your help but I don't think that will improve the stealth sends for me as I would end up with 10 proxy tracks in each folder for my 10 fx tracks and don't find a compelling advantage atm. Thanks for the ideas !!!!

[SonicAxiom]

I'm not sure if I'm getting all aspect's of your initial issue, Coachz

Wouldn't something like the following track template work (based on several VCA groups)? Voc's and bvoc's levels incl. associated send fx volumes can be adjusted by lowering faders at any folder hierarchy level.



Here's the corresponding track template: https://www.audioworld.de/data/VCAs%...RTrackTemplate

Please explain if I missed something.

.

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by SonicAxiom

I'm not sure if I'm getting all aspect's of your initial issue, Coachz

Wouldn't something like the following track template work (based on several VCA groups)? Voc's and bvoc's levels incl. associated send fx volumes can be adjusted by lowering faders at any folder hierarchy level.



Here's the corresponding track template: https://www.audioworld.de/data/VCAs%...RTrackTemplate

Please explain if I missed something.

.

That's one way to do it but I found multiple vca groups less elegant than just using the audio channels on the sends. You never know, I might end up there when I test more. Thanks !

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by SonicAxiom

Please explain if I missed something.

I'm not sure I understand what I'm looking at here because it's in German, but also I never actually use that stuff, but...

It looks like you've got the folder parents working as VCA master for their children. This is redundant. Turn down the folder fader by 1db. The child coming through the folder will have that 1db applied to it, but then its fader also goes down 1db, so the total effect on that signal is 2db attenuation.

But the child fader itself only went down 1db, so the signal sent from that track to the reverb is now proportionately louder than the "dry path" through the folder structure and you've messed up your wet/dry balance anyway.

And of course if you have a compressor on the folder track, the child is now hitting it differently, so you'll probably have to go adjust that.

[SonicAxiom]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

I'm not sure I understand what I'm looking at here because it's in German, but also I never actually use that stuff, but...

It looks like you've got the folder parents working as VCA master for their children. This is redundant. Turn down the folder fader by 1db. The child coming through the folder will have that 1db applied to it, but then its fader also goes down 1db, so the total effect on that signal is 2db attenuation.

But the child fader itself only went down 1db, so the signal sent from that track to the reverb is now proportionately louder than the "dry path" through the folder structure and you've messed up your wet/dry balance anyway.

And of course if you have a compressor on the folder track, the child is now hitting it differently, so you'll probably have to go adjust that.

You are correct, ashcat. I had also spotted these issues with direct and fx levels getting messed up.

.