Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Drammy
I am trying to remember the reason I ended up using this approach and I think it was so that I can route the audio coming into Cubase.
i.e. say I have the Virus playing a bassline and the Machinedrum playing a kick and I want to duck the bass with the kick, then I have to do this on an audio channel as you cannot reroute the audio inputs anywhere other than the main outputs. So if I want to send them to a group channel I found that I had to use audio channels and monitor the audio channel.
Does that make sense?
|
I guess in some instances, like your example, it is better to monitor via SX. Like I said though, if it is just straight tracking/monitoring live inputs like Vox or Guitars, where the player needs to be in perfect time, the hardware monitoring is the go...
Quote:
Here's one that is puzzling me at the moment:
In Cubase SX 3 - I have found that it is best to create about 20 group channels before starting. Otherwise if you run out of group channels and have to add more then you end up being unable to route the audio running through the original groups to the new groups, they just don't appear. Its as if they cascade off one another and you can only route from the newer channel to the older...
Does that make sense - or do you use FX channels - I never use them, perhaps I should experiment with them more!
|
I always use FX channels!!! I only use the group channels to group certain sections together ie drums.. I might do some dynamics processing to the individual tracks (snare, kick etc...) and then further dynamics processing on the kit as a whole from the group tracks inserts.
I only use FX channels for my sends ie reverbs, delays, and sometimes flangers/phasers etc...
The thing is though, I have a tendency to look at things traditionally, and often with software there are no hard and fast rules, and experimentation is the key.