Hello fellow forum users. I’m a little confused when it comes to sends on a channel versus the output routing of the same channel. I have 6 channels I’ve panned and mixed. I created a group channel so I can adjust the volume mix of all 6 channels at the same time, keeping them relative to each other. I noticed on each channel, I can set the output routing to the group channel I created, and I can turn on the Send for each channel and point it to the group channel as well. When using the Send option, I also get another level to adjust for the send output for that specific channel. If the software allows you to do this both ways, which is the correct/better way to route the output, and what would the other routing method be used for?
I hope I explained this well enough. I’m no pro at recording/mixing. I appreciate all help provided. Thanks in advance!
If you’re using the group as a submix (from your description I think this is a case with your situation), the “correct” way is to route channels to group. Note the quotes on the word “correct”. There’s no absolute “corect” way.You can do things in the way that suits to you.
Having sends to the group is just one way to make groups more flexible and gives you possibilities to be more creative when it comes to routing. Personally I have no idea for what these group sends could be used for. If there were no FX tracks in CB you could use sends to groups tracks to emulate FX tracks, but since you have I find this feature useless. But maybe someone else can find a way to use it.
Thanks for the input. yeah it just seemed a bit redundant to me, but I see how sends could be more useful when sending an effects track to multiple different groups.
Thanks again!
Yes, it’s a bit redundant. But the real redundant part in CB is the fact that you have FX tracks and Group tracks which has exactly the same properties. Only difference is the fact that they are grouped in their own folders on your project window.
Historically (in “good old” analog world) these were different beasts: in analog mixing consoles you had AUXes where you could send your channels into (FX tracks) and busses/subgroups (Group tracks) where you could route your channels into. Now, in computer world we don’t have to have this artificial separation (in analog consoles it would have been too costly to have both routing buttons and send potentiometers for both), but still people at Steinberg decided to keep these 2 as different types. I don’t know why.
Yeah, I actually thought about that after my last post. You could potentially add the FX right to multiple channels or have an fX channel send to a buss of channels. I guess in the digital world, the latter method might reduce the amount of processing power needed.