# Do you use a Mix bus or just the Master Bus



## easyrider (Feb 5, 2021)

I have watching a few Videos on Mixing lately.And some mixers use a Mixbus for all their tracks...I’m not talking about busses within the channels like drum bus , or strings bus or vox busses. I’m talking about sending all the channels to a Mix Bus then applying processing to that rather have all the channels and busses go directly to the Master fader.


Do you create a Mix bus channel and send All your tracks to that and apply EQ/compression Etc.. ?

Or instead have everything going to the Main outs\Master Fader ?


----------



## storyteller (Feb 5, 2021)

Mix bus 100%. One reason is that it allows you to place plugins on the main outs for sound correction or headphone emulation without affecting your internal render on your mix bus. But another big reason in Reaper is that using a mix bus more efficiently uses multicore processing and anticipative effects processing. Finally, with OTR, I use a much more complicated mix bus concept to be able to bus out from the mix bus to render stems with the push of a button, no configuration necessary.


----------



## pmcrockett (Feb 5, 2021)

I have historically used a mix bus, but recently I've started working without one so that stems will cancel against the master. It hasn't been as difficult a switch as I expected -- I'm using compressors fed with a master sidechain that give me the equivalent of a master compressor, and I've duplicated all the other important parts of my former master effects chain into the individual stems. Mostly I miss the ease of a master EQ -- I haven't found an EQ yet that will propagate changes to other instances, but that would solve the problem of trying to duplicate the function of a master EQ on stems.

EDIT: Now that I've actually voiced my EQ problem, it occurs to me that I might be able to hack something together in Reaper that links all the EQ parameters to one another across instances. I'll have to look into that.


----------



## Divico (Feb 5, 2021)

pmcrockett said:


> I have historically used a mix bus, but recently I've started working without one so that stems will cancel against the master. It hasn't been as difficult a switch as I expected -- I'm using compressors fed with a master sidechain that give me the equivalent of a master compressor, and I've duplicated all the other important parts of my former master effects chain into the individual stems. Mostly I miss the ease of a master EQ -- I haven't found an EQ yet that will propagate changes to other instances, but that would solve the problem of trying to duplicate the function of a master EQ on stems.
> 
> EDIT: Now that I've actually voiced my EQ problem, it occurs to me that I might be able to hack something together in Reaper that links all the EQ parameters to one another across instances. I'll have to look into that.


The new neutron by isotope should be able to do this.
@storyteller are you sure about the multithreading? Speaker calibration can be put into monitor fx


----------



## Dietz (Feb 5, 2021)

Always a dedicated bus, especially in old-school DAWs without proper monitor- and metering-management (like the one introduced by Nuendo about a decade ago).


----------



## Wally Garten (Feb 5, 2021)

I just use the master track, though @storyteller makes a good point about headphone correction software if you're using that.


----------



## jben (Feb 5, 2021)

I also use the master track for eq, compression and limiting, because in Reaper you can use the "Monitor FX" to apply the headphone correction without affecting the final render.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 5, 2021)

In Cubase, a headphone/monitor correction plugin can just feed into the control room feature. In Logic, I place it on the master track, you just need to deactivate it before rendering.


----------



## Breaker (Feb 5, 2021)

I use a separate mixbus in Cubase but mainly as a habit - nowadays with 16 insert slots and control room I could easily do with just the Stereo Out channel.


----------



## storyteller (Feb 5, 2021)

Divico said:


> The new neutron by isotope should be able to do this.
> @storyteller are you sure about the multithreading? Speaker calibration can be put into monitor fx


Yep! I haven't tested it recently, but the way Reaper used to handle the main bus in v5 would cause higher CPU usage if main fx were placed there rather than on a mix bus. It was part of my efficiency design when I built my own template that eventually became OTR for everyone else. IIRC the master out would not distribute fx processing or do anticipative FX processing across multi cores... something like that at least. It has been a little while since I've been in that particular brain-space for the testing and design phase of my workflow... so I may not be stating that 100% accurately. But I do know that's the gist of it.


----------



## Trash Panda (Feb 5, 2021)

I will do a separate mix bus if I'm using a reference track on a mockup that I don't want any FX to be applied to. If I'm not using a reference track, everything that would go in the mix bus goes on the master bus.

I use Reaper's Monitor FX for Realphones or machine-specific effects.

Each instrument group has its own mix bus (brass, strings, etc.) and if there is a combination of ensemble and soloist tracks on a specific instrument, might have a bus for trumpets, trombones, etc.


----------



## patrick76 (Feb 5, 2021)

Mix bus before the master fader so you can adjust the level on the mix bus without it effecting the processing on it, whereas if you had processing on the master fader and needed to change levels I believe the processing would change (such as compression).


----------



## dzilizzi (Feb 5, 2021)

I've mostly just used a master fader, but I haven't done much that is too complicated to really need a bus. I have used a master bus a couple times when I want to put a lot of effects on the whole mix. I try to limit the master fader to a compressor and limiter. So I am not opposed to using one.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 5, 2021)

Yes, it’s now very common to add effects on the master bus.

it used to be only the g sll compressor from the g series ssl back on the day to give it that glue.

now there are some hardware products for this specific thing. Master bus processors. Like the ssl fusion.

Even for some modern genres like hiphop that master bus processing is part of the sound while producing , and with strong settings.

and traditionally pro tools engineers back In the day wild set up a master bus processing aux to listen how the track would sound like when mastered... or closed to in levels and freq. that way they can go back and forth and correct things like that snare that’s very hard to mix. In mastering that snare sticks out a lot.

sometimes you have to be careful in filmscoring since re recording mixers use stems to re do part of the track so if the stems sound different than the main mix they might not like it.


----------



## GtrString (Feb 6, 2021)

I like to use a mix bus for mix processing, because if I have a heavily processed track, like a synth patch or something, I can route it directly to the master fader, so it doesent get the additional mixbus processing. Also great for some drums. A mix bus adds flexibility.


----------



## AudioLoco (Feb 6, 2021)

pmcrockett said:


> I have historically used a mix bus, but recently I've started working without one so that stems will cancel against the master. It hasn't been as difficult a switch as I expected -- I'm using compressors fed with a master sidechain that give me the equivalent of a master compressor, and I've duplicated all the other important parts of my former master effects chain into the individual stems. Mostly I miss the ease of a master EQ -- I haven't found an EQ yet that will propagate changes to other instances, but that would solve the problem of trying to duplicate the function of a master EQ on stems.
> 
> EDIT: Now that I've actually voiced my EQ problem, it occurs to me that I might be able to hack something together in Reaper that links all the EQ parameters to one another across instances. I'll have to look into that.


Heya pmcrockett.... 
I was always on the verge of trying out a similar setup as stems sounding so different from the final product are getting on my nerves. Never had a lot of time to try changes but will have to at one point.
I often export the final stems with the master EQ setting on but without the compressors/limiter. I use more then one compressor and often other fancy shamnzy bus treatments (MS EQ, saturation, whatever the track needs). The stereo master sounds always better then the stems...
So you feed the SC input of every single instance of stem compressor from the master output? Do you use only one compressor per stem? Do you do that with a limiter as well? 
Also, I was thinking, as a work-flow, maybe find the master bus EQ and compressor settings first (on the actual 2bus), and at the end, duplicate the plugins with the given settings to each stem? 
If, like you were implying, my favorite plugins could follow a "master" settings this would be much easier...
(That's an idea for Steinberg....)

Very interested in various solutions for this cunundrum....
Cheers!


----------



## easyrider (Feb 6, 2021)

gsilbers said:


> Yes, it’s now very common to add effects on the master bus.
> 
> it used to be only the g sll compressor from the g series ssl back on the day to give it that glue.
> 
> now there are some hardware products for this specific thing. Master bus processors. Like the ssl fusion.


Slightly off topic....Someone Rented the SSL fusion on another forum and did a blind test with the Free Acustica Celestial plugin..









Friday Free Plug-in - Celestial From Acustica | Pro Tools - The leading website for Pro Tools users


In this week's Friday Free Plug-in , we are featuring Celestial From Acustica which is free until February the 14th.




www.pro-tools-expert.com





The question was guess which mix is hardware on the master?

Some picked mix A
Some picked Mix B

There was certainly not a definitive decision....


----------



## pmcrockett (Feb 6, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> Heya pmcrockett....
> I was always on the verge of trying out a similar setup as stems sounding so different from the final product are getting on my nerves. Never had a lot of time to try changes but will have to at one point.
> I often export the final stems with the master EQ setting on but without the compressors/limiter. I use more then one compressor and often other fancy shamnzy bus treatments (MS EQ, saturation, whatever the track needs). The stereo master sounds always better then the stems...
> So you feed the SC input of every single instance of stem compressor from the master output? Do you use only one compressor per stem? Do you do that with a limiter as well?
> ...


In situations when I need a master EQ, yes, I generally tweak the EQ on the master bus first before moving those setting to the individual stems and deleting the one on the master.

I'm still experimenting with the best way to handle master limiting with this workflow, but here's how I'm doing compression:

I'm using only one sidechained compressor per stem, though you could conceivably use this routing for multiple compressors. Each individual stem's signal chain is split between two tracks: [stem pre-compression], which routes to [stem post-compression]. Any effects in the chain that come before the compression go on the [stem pre-compression] track. Each [stem pre-compression] track is then bussed to the same [sidechain bus] track to create a mix that will feed the compressor sidechains with the same material. This sidechain track does not output to the master. It's routed back to each [stem post-compression] track as a sidechain, and each of those tracks has as its first effect a compressor that's triggered by the sidechain input. So basically the combination of all [stem pre-compression] tracks serves as a sidechain to all [stem post-compression] tracks.

Probably clearer with an image:


----------



## AudioLoco (Feb 6, 2021)

pmcrockett said:


> In situations when I need a master EQ, yes, I generally tweak the EQ on the master bus first before moving those setting to the individual stems and deleting the one on the master.
> 
> I'm still experimenting with the best way to handle master limiting with this workflow, but here's how I'm doing compression:
> 
> ...


Thanks I appreciate that!


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 6, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Slightly off topic....Someone Rented the SSL fusion on another forum and did a blind test with the Free Acustica Celestial plugin..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


here is another plugin





FOCUS ONE | SICK INDIVIDUALS


The Focus One is a powerful




focusone-plugin.com






lol.. i just ordered the ssl fusion. oh well. I still need someting to offload stuff from my older computer. and get some analog vibes. 

I also ordered the overstayer modular channel. Lets see which one stays P

My idea is to have few hardware boxes but can do several things. At 2k for the ssl, its like $500 per stereo effect i guess. (eq, comp, drive, spatial). 
Which seems a plugin can equaly do 

There is also the master buss processor from rupert neve 








Master Buss Processor — Rupert Neve







www.rupertneve.com





Which not sure if it was a better deal than the fusion. seems poeple like it more but that branding is strong with him. I choosed the fusion mainly cuz of the sll compressor which i use the waves ssl so im used to that sounds. Also, $1k less 

Its hard to try these higher end units. Ill try and test them vs the plugins at higher /stronger levels and see how the "Drive" performs. im guessing not that much of a difference. Drive/saturation seems to still be considered better in the anaog domain. but the difference might be too small and other things (like actual music/songwriting) will matter more.


----------



## Nate Johnson (Feb 6, 2021)

Normally I just jam all my final processing on the master fader and then fight with it all to gel together finally.

But, I’m really liking the idea of sending the entire mix to a separate bus, before hitting the master fader. 

It just funny, as I love to bus the shit out of just about everything else in my sessions, but never thought to try that!


----------



## sostenuto (Feb 6, 2021)

storyteller said:


> Yep! I haven't tested it recently, but the way Reaper used to handle the main bus in v5 would cause higher CPU usage if main fx were placed there rather than on a mix bus. It was part of my efficiency design when I built my own template that eventually became OTR for everyone else. IIRC the master out would not distribute fx processing or do anticipative FX processing across multi cores... something like that at least. It has been a little while since I've been in that particular brain-space for the testing and design phase of my workflow... so I may not be stating that 100% accurately. But I do know that's the gist of it.


Do you .. per chance ... have a simple Reaper Project File, with preferred Mix Bus config, you are willing to provide for easy learning and usage ? Even blank Tracks, but as you would normally use ?


----------



## storyteller (Feb 6, 2021)

sostenuto said:


> Do you .. per chance ... have a simple Reaper Project File, with preferred Mix Bus config, you are willing to provide for easy learning and usage ? Even blank Tracks, but as you would normally use ?


The easiest method would be to just make sure you have a folder track as the very first track and have everything else as a child track up underneath it. This would be your Mix Bus. That is your best bet. Then you can right-click the mix bus -> render to stereo track to create your Mix.

The alternative is to just place all of your tracks in Reaper as parent tracks. To use your first track as your Mix bus, just uncheck the "Send to parent track" on all the other tracks below, then makes sure you drag your I/O button from each of those tracks to the 1st track as a Send. That will route the outputs of the other tracks to the input of your first track (the Mix bus).


----------



## sostenuto (Feb 6, 2021)

storyteller said:


> The easiest method would be to just make sure you have a folder track as the very first track and have everything else as a child track up underneath it. This would be your Mix Bus. That is your best bet. Then you can right-click the mix bus -> render to stereo track to create your Mix.
> 
> The alternative is to just place all of your tracks in Reaper as parent tracks. To use your first track as your Mix bus, just uncheck the "Send to parent track" on all the other tracks below, then makes sure you drag your I/O button from each of those tracks to the 1st track as a Send. That will route the outputs of the other tracks to the input of your first track (the Mix bus).


Got it. Many thanks for these starting points which avoid lots of bad attempts and wasted effort.


----------



## jaketanner (Feb 6, 2021)

In my professional experience (I use Pro Tools), i found that mixing with a RTD (return to disk) method works best for me. Also in PT, the main Mix bus is post fader, so any fades or adjustments you make will affect the plugins. So I use a stereo AUX track with ALL outputs of 1-2 routed to it, and that is sent to a stereo audio track (PRINT track). Many advantages for me with this...the biggest one, is that I can simply start and stop the recording, punch in, edit and even make adjustments while it's recording. Then I export. 

So all my processing goes on my AUX track. Second reason for this is that if I have a reference track imported, I can easily A/B my mix against the reference by the solo X-cancel feature so A/Bing is instantaneous on the fly and I don't need to mute one and un-mute the other...no lag. And the reference track does NOT get the bus processing because it's routed toe the Mix bus only... There are other personal sonic reasons I like it this way, but mostly that's why...convenience.


----------



## Dietz (Feb 6, 2021)

jaketanner said:


> reason for this is that if I have a reference track imported, I can easily A/B my mix against the reference by the solo X-cancel feature so A/Bing is instantaneous


... one of the most important reasons indeed.


----------



## jben (Feb 7, 2021)

storyteller said:


> Mix bus 100%. One reason is that it allows you to place plugins on the main outs for sound correction or headphone emulation without affecting your internal render on your mix bus. _But another big reason in Reaper is that using a mix bus more efficiently uses multicore processing and anticipative effects processing_. Finally, with OTR, I use a much more complicated mix bus concept to be able to bus out from the mix bus to render stems with the push of a button, no configuration necessary.


I've just made some tests and this is true, in my projects it's about 30% more efficient using the mix bus with my mastering plugins (Waves AR TG Mastering Chain and ToneBoosters Barricade 4) instead of the main mix.

Also, it makes the A/B referencing very easy, without using external plugins.

Thanks for the tips!


----------

