# Creating stems in Cubase (with send FX)



## EmmCeeSq

Hi all, 

Can I ask for some tricks and tips on the quickest, most painless way to export stems (with send FX) from Cubase, ideally from those working in library/production music? I'm being asked to provide stems in groups, and I'm running into some problems with Cubase.

Cubase (I'm on C10) lacks the facility to be able to export stems with the signal path intact (I don't want to just stick a reverb on my 'high strings' group, as I tailor verb and fx differently for different insturments that doesn't necessarily match my main groups in the mixer). 

MEAP doesn't look like it supports Cubase 10, and I've seen some suggestions that indicate 'render in place' as a decent substitute, but this still needs to be done manually. I'd appreciate any tips. Thanks so much.

Mike


----------



## Vin

These might help:


----------



## EmmCeeSq

Fantastic! That will save me a hell of a lot of time - I'll slightly adapt the method shown in the 2nd video. Brilliant, thanks so much for your help!


----------



## chrisr

EmmCeeSq said:


> MEAP doesn't look like it supports Cubase 10



Phil has posted on his FB page to say that he's working on it.


----------



## dog1978

Use groups, it'sthat easy way.


----------



## EmmCeeSq

dog1978 said:


> Use groups, it'sthat easy way.


I’m Cubase, group batch export won’t include the entire signal path (as stated previously I don’t like just slapping my fx/verb on groups, instead preferring to send them on a ‘per-track’ basis). Am I wrong?


----------



## goalie composer

EmmCeeSq said:


> I’m Cubase, group batch export won’t include the entire signal path (as stated previously I don’t like just slapping my fx/verb on groups, instead preferring to send them on a ‘per-track’ basis). Am I wrong?


The only way I know how to keep the send reverb on while not receiving the reverb signal from other instruments is to solo the instruments you want, then bounce it out. Time consuming for sure but it gets the results you're after. If anyone else has a better way of doing this, please chime in.


----------



## EmmCeeSq

goalie composer said:


> The only way I know how to keep the send reverb on while not receiving the reverb signal from other instruments is to solo the instruments you want, then bounce it out. Time consuming for sure but it gets the results you're after. If anyone else has a better way of doing this, please chime in.



See the second video posted above. A much better way of doing things than spending the best part of three hours with this solution. It’s more than slightly irritating that Steinberg haven’t addressed this issue. The colour scheme is nice and all, but I’d much rather have some improved functionality...


----------



## goalie composer

EmmCeeSq said:


> See the second video posted above. A much better way of doing things than spending the best part of three hours with this solution. It’s more than slightly irritating that Steinberg haven’t addressed this issue. The colour scheme is nice and all, but I’d much rather have some improved functionality...


Watched it, thanks  Still doesn't address the reverb as send issue I mentioned unless I'm mistaken


----------



## EmmCeeSq

goalie composer said:


> Watched it, thanks  Still doesn't address the reverb as send issue I mentioned unless I'm mistaken


It does (I think) as you simply send each group to its own ‘stem’ channel. Cubase will let you send a group, so it prints all of your groups in real time. I’ll test it soon, but don’t see any reason it won’t work.


----------



## EmmCeeSq

EmmCeeSq said:


> It does (I think) as you simply send each group to its own ‘stem’ channel. Cubase will let you send a group, so it prints all of your groups in real time. I’ll test it soon, but don’t see any reason it won’t work.


Sorry, I’ve not explained that very well. I’ll suss it out, and see if I can’t make a video of how it works.


----------



## labornvain

It's really simple. Create different groups for your different instrument sets. Then create different reverb sends for your different instrument sets. So your strings will have one reverb, brass another Etc.

Then, assign the output of all your different reverbs to their respective groups. So your strings reverb's output will be bused to your strings group.

This way the string instruments' sends will be independently adjustable, but the reverb return for the strings will be bussed through the strings group. So when you're ready to drop stems, every section will have its own reverb printed with that stem.


----------



## EmmCeeSq

labornvain said:


> It's really simple. Create different groups for your different instrument sets. Then create different reverb sends for your different instrument sets. So your strings will have one reverb, brass another Etc.
> 
> Then, assign the output of all your different reverbs to their respective groups. So your strings reverb's output will be bused to your strings group.
> 
> This way the string instruments' sends will be independently adjustable, but the reverb return for the strings will be bussed through the strings group. So when you're ready to drop stems, every section will have its own reverb printed with that stem.


Oh Good Lord. How in hell did I miss the option to route a send in Cubase? This is why I posted this in 'newbie questions.' And it works even if (and when) I use different reverbs for different instruments, provided they're all routed to the group (I use groups as a matter of course for mixing anyway), job done. Thanks for chiming in - sometimes you don't realise a possibility exists until someone tells you about it. You've saved me a massive chunk of time here, I O U a drink of your choice.


----------



## Justus

labornvain said:


> It's really simple. Create different groups for your different instrument sets. Then create different reverb sends for your different instrument sets. So your strings will have one reverb, brass another Etc.
> 
> Then, assign the output of all your different reverbs to their respective groups. So your strings reverb's output will be bused to your strings group.
> 
> This way the string instruments' sends will be independently adjustable, but the reverb return for the strings will be bussed through the strings group. So when you're ready to drop stems, every section will have its own reverb printed with that stem.



That's how I do it! Couldn't wrap my head around it but found this solution in Jason Graves' videos.


----------



## macmac

In the second video he's talking about adding buses in the audio connections then audio tracks. So is it better to be making groups instead, i.e. labornvein above? (am a recent crossgrader in the Cubase Pro extravaganza).


----------



## EmmCeeSq

macmac said:


> In the second video he's talking about adding buses in the audio connections then audio tracks. So is it better to be making groups instead, i.e. labornvein above? (am a recent crossgrader in the Cubase Pro extravaganza).


I use groups anyway, because I’ll often have a fairly large mix that can quickly get overwhelming. I use a combination of groups and VCA faders to manage the workload. So in my case the solution laborvein outlined above is the best for me.


----------



## macmac

Thanks. The groups are then sent to separate buses, or not necessary?

Secondly, do you guys make your template with disabled tracks so that load time is shorter (then enable as you go)?


----------



## labornvain

EmmCeeSq said:


> Oh Good Lord. How in hell did I miss the option to route a send in Cubase? This is why I posted this in 'newbie questions.' And it works even if (and when) I use different reverbs for different instruments, provided they're all routed to the group (I use groups as a matter of course for mixing anyway), job done. Thanks for chiming in - sometimes you don't realise a possibility exists until someone tells you about it. You've saved me a massive chunk of time here, I O U a drink of your choice.


Heh. I'm happy it's going to work for you. And believe me, what comes around goes around. I learn new things every day at this place.


----------



## EmmCeeSq

macmac said:


> Thanks. The groups are then sent to separate buses?
> 
> Secondly, do you guys make your template with disabled tracks so that load time is shorter (then enable as you go)?


I use Vienna ensemble, and have a metagrid command set up in my template that activates the track, enables the instrument in VEPro. Disabled tracks in Cubase is a perfectly valid alternative though. 

You don’t really need to bus your groups separately. Cubase has a ‘batch export’ feature, so for creating stems you can simply select all your groups (assuming they correspond to the stems that are required). Provided you route any send FX to your group (I simply didn’t realise you could do this, and I’m suitably embarrassed by my knowledge gap) you’ll get nicely stemmed groups, with a full signal path intact. Easy as pie.


----------



## Andrew Goodwin

Yeah the issue is that if you're using any mastering plugins or say a lot of send FX, you have to create separate fx tracks for each stem. So if you have 4 stems and you were using 2 reverbs, you need 4 group tracks, 4 versions of the mastering plugins and 4 versions of the 2 reverbs. This is why the need for multi computer or External plugin processing like UAD or Waves.

I like my plugins, but I have realized that while I can't batch export all stems at once, I can do 2-3 stems simultaneously this way depending on a session and that's still 3 times faster.


----------



## labornvain

macmac said:


> Thanks. The groups are then sent to separate buses?
> 
> Secondly, do you guys make your template with disabled tracks so that load time is shorter (then enable as you go)?



Not necessarily. You can route all of your groups to the master bus for monitoring and then in the mix down panel choose to print individual groups.

I personally do assign all of my groups to other groups - what I call master groups which function as a master bus.

Depending on the material, I will have 3 Master groups. One for the kick and bass, another for the rest of the drums, and then another for everything else.

This is basically a way of dividing the master bus into three separate Master buses. This way anything you would normally put on your master bus, is now divided between these three different sets of instruments.

It's especially useful for bus compression. Instead of running my entire mix through one bus compressor, I now run the kick and bass through one compressor, the rest of the drum kit through another compressor, and then everything else through a third compressor.

This eliminates the problem of high energy, low frequency, or very transient material pumping the compressor on all the other instruments.

It also allows you to use different types of bus compressors on these different instrument sets.

It's a wonderful trick that really allows your mix to breathe in a natural way.

Of course this won't work on stems.


----------



## macmac

(Note: This reply was being typed to EmmCeeSq before labornvain responded)

Thanks! So just to be sure I got this right, for example:

1) Clarification: Labornvain says "...Then create different reverb sends for your different instrument sets. So your strings will have one reverb, brass another Etc."

I've made a [reverb] FX channel for each group (strings FX, etc), so that's fine.

By the words "instrument sets", he means individual tracks within that group (e.g. strings) are sent to Strings FX, right? Because not only can't a [string] group be sent to the [string] FX (that choice isn't in the drop-down menu, for one), you may not want every instrument in that group to have FX. Just checking.

--->2) I have the String FX is direct routed to Strings group. Or is supposed to be under Send?

3) Other question regarding what is normally done when a person doesn't do stems and instead has master bus processing (for pseudo-mastering):

If you are now doing stems: in order for the stem to equal the stereo file and not be run through processing twice, you would omit master bus processing and instead put whatever processing on each group bus, but what about any final loudness that would typically go on the master bus?

And finally, to labornvain about your 3 extra Master buses: instead of three, one could route each group to a separate bus for that group, or is that necessary when you could just put processing on the group as an insert?

Thank you very much!


----------



## labornvain

1. is correct. Turn off all sins from your group channels.

2. Is also correct. You do not want to use sends on your group channels.

3. Right. When you're going to export stems, avoid processing on the master bus. When you export stems from the groups it bypasses the master bus anyway. At least unless you specifically tell it not to. Cubase has a feature that allows you to export individual tracks through the master bus. I don't recommend using this feature.

Instead, bypass the master bus and Export your stems straight from the group channels. Any processing you feel like you need to do, you can do in the group's insert.

And lastly, yes. Routing your groups to other buses would be redundant since that's really what a group is is a bus. So any processing you want to put on that bus you would just insert it on the group.

Half the reason we put processing on a master bus is the sense of glueiness you get from sending all those different tracks to one say compressor or tape simulator.

The only way to achieve this effect when exporting groups as individual stems, is to sidechain all the other groups to the master bus compressor's detector so that when you are exporting one group, all the other groups are secretly affecting the that compressor.

I read a paper about this technique recently from a guy based out of Nashville. Honestly though, I'm skeptical that it would really work the same, or that it would even be worth it.

But because of a personal defect, I have no choice but to give it a try sometime. I'll report back with my results.


----------



## macmac

Thank you very much.

Your sidechain results will be interesting. Alternatively though for the final loudness, I suppose slight limiting on each group could be done and test, test, test... but it's a whole lot easier to pseudo-master the stereo file using the master bus. 

To get the stems to equal a stereo file is the issue (e.g. a final stereo file that had been created via the master bus processing). Now I would love being able to routinely do stems and create the stereo file from those. It would be an ideal way to go if the [final loudness] stereo file could be accomplished via each stem, (to equal what the master bus processing would have provided instead).


----------

