TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- FX Channel

FX Channel

I use Cubase 5. One of the things you can use is FX buses.


My question is what is the point?


Other than resampling the sounds of the effect is there a real advantage to using FX channels over just putting FX on channels?

It means you avoid having to duplicate the effect unit over and over again by putting it as an insert in every channel you want to use it on.

Dont use cubase but i assume they are to send your tracks to.. whats the point in having the same reverb or delay on each channel when you can just use 1 and send your tracks to it..

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles It means you avoid having to duplicate the effect unit over and over again by putting it as an insert in every channel you want to use it on.

Just to expand on it, adding varying degrees of reverb from the same unit makes instruments sit better together, instead of multiple reverb units with different settings, one reverb unit makes the sounds gel better together, also you can vary just how much reverb each channel is getting from the send track.

Also saves a ton of CPU

Re: FX Channel

quote:

Originally posted by TenTwo I use Cubase 5. One of the things you can use is FX buses. My question is what is the point? Other than resampling the sounds of the effect is there a real advantage to using FX channels over just putting FX on channels?

There was a thread on here a few weeks ago i think about sends/returns/aux tracks - i think this is what you are talking about. They are essential imo

Re: Re: FX Channel

quote:

Originally posted by evo8 There was a thread on here a few weeks ago i think about sends/returns/aux tracks - i think this is what you are talking about. They are essential imo

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=fx+channels

was it this thread?

It's funny shortly after writing this post I ended up figuring out the advantage and using it a bunch lol.

Used FX and group channels for reverb, delay, and side chaining. I also found that side chaining actually sounds better running it through a group channel with a compressor on it instead of using Cubase's built in side chaining effect.

Also finally figured out how to get cubase to separate battery 3 into separate channels for each sample. Probably woulda figured it out sooner but I don't like reading manuals.

Thanks for the link to the other thread!

quote:

Originally posted by TenTwo Probably woulda figured it out sooner but I don't like reading manuals.

Word

quote:

Originally posted by TenTwo I don't like reading manuals.

You need to sort that out, you'll be so surprised how quick yiu find answers.

Re: Re: Re: FX Channel

quote:

Originally posted by music2dance2 http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ght=fx+channels was it this thread?

Yes, I believe it was. And this was my 2cents:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN WTF? this makes me think that you have no idea about the subject. The WHOLE POINT of sends is that you are taking a copy of the signal to another destination then back to the master, while not affecting the original (dry ) channel. It's to allow you to balance a wet dry mix of that desired function. An insert is to take the actual signal flow and divert it to another destination then back to the master. Essentially, it is only wet because there is no dry signal to balance it with. They are both used to route audio but have two distinct uses and are different functions on purpose. Yes, you use a buss to route and you use a send to route audio somewhere but they both have their own places. For instance,(generally speaking) a buss carries many signals and a send is the function of sending one "split" off a single channel. They do the same thing in terms of routing theory but have different terms as they are different in function.

Re: Re: Re: Re: FX Channel

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Yes, I believe it was. And this was my 2cents:

Thanks, thats a pretty clear answer.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.