Ive been changing/refining a lot of details in mix workflow; one thing that I have always wondered on large consoles and/or DAW,
If you have individual post faders sends on individual child tracks that end up subgroup eg
Drums
Snare > individual sends to global verb, throw verb etc
then when you adjust the subgroup level, the reverb sends dont follow so the fx are now unbalanced to the actual single element
How, in your workflow, do you manage this
I know you can set a vca to do the job, but that creates another redundant fader
I spent decades getting global space correct. I wont bother explaining because its proprietary now…but needless to say it like a 6 channel surround sampled room and its not possible ie they arent just stereo plugs…its a persistent room with individual placement of elements that all need to address the global space, individually
You could link and automate the sends, but that can get messy pretty quickly.
Using a VCA is cleaner, since it moves the actual channel faders, the post-fader sends stay proportional and your FX balance doesn’t shift.
Yep but its just adding complexity for no reason when it should be able to be handled correctly. I like in reaper that you can do this…by using parent which is also a grouping tool. Anyway its missing so many other things but Cubase could sure come up to speed with a modular mixing paradigm instead of ONLY old school console.
Because there is no real power in routing in Cubase…it just gets messy very quickly when you want to go further than just entry level patching
You could also use a dummy bus, route the snare through an intermediate bus and send to the FX from there. That way the sends follow the gain stage without needing a VCA. It’s a bit more routing, but it behaves more like a modular structure.
It’s definitely more work though. Cubase can feel a bit limited once you start pushing routing beyond traditional console logic. Reaper is much more flexible.
But the send is PFL for obvious reasons and there is a lot more to it than that…but I just would have thought even at a basic level, anyone using subgroups would have come across this decades ago?
Anyway…seems no one else is doing it this way. Im not ready to go to Reaper at this stage as I have to give away 35 years of Cubase experience and loose so many features that Reaper doesnt have or have to code it to get it. Im just here to mix now and with experience come increase in simplicity but also maturity in understanding…just how it is…play the same song on violin for 20 years…you have no choice but to get better so its def not some lame boast
However, contrary to so much BS on YT etc teaching the next gen a crock of poo when our audio playback equip is so much better…audiophile compared to 30 years ago…we have most peeps pumping the 90s loudness wars poo and making the worst mixes that have ever existed. Trying playing this rubbish through todays audiophile gear…its vomit.
Which brings me back to why I would bother…I connected to some audiophile groups and posted some basic tracks that is done just for art and not a finished -9 product, polished to perfection (although you cant polish poo thats for sure). They were asking why current recordings dont sound like this…why is there so much space, why do they feel like they are in the space with the musicians etc. That needs global space, good dynamic range etc…Im in between -15 > -18 for decent premasters and -14 is actually a great space to be..
I digress…so Cubase users generally musnt be doing this now I would suspect?
I don’t think it’s that Cubase users haven’t come across it. Most people working in Cubase are just operating within a console-style gain structure.
Cubase isn’t really built as a fully modular gain environment. It’s intentionally console-derived, so once you accept that, the behaviour makes sense and the workflow stays predictable. Warts ‘n all.
And on the dynamics side, that’s really more about mix philosophy than DAW limitations. You can absolutely live in the -15 to -18 premaster range in Cubase. That comes down to gain staging and restraint rather than routing structure.
So I wouldn’t say no one is doing it. It’s more that most Cubase users just aren’t trying to restructure the gain hierarchy in that way.
With respect; using subgroups etc is the one of the oldest uses on a desk right? Thats the whole point so you can move the relative gain of sub groups to automate the feel of dynamics…but if you do that and keep the bottom up/top down structure, the individual sends per bottom level are affected by the SG send.
On larger projects I would have thought this is 101…I bring in the comparison to dynamics because doing a mix without jamming everything into the MBuss dynamics is hard, really hard to get right…Im only bumping 1 or 2 db on external analog bussing so it really pushes on getting the mix positioned well beforehand. Start pushing it and it all falls apart.
Thats kind of why I asked the question…in a console type setup with subgroups and individual sends…how is everyone else doing it?
No tricks, just plain console analogy… Without compromising the very old school idea of shared fx eg reverb.
I think the part that’s getting blurred is that even on large format consoles, moving a subgroup fader never changed the post-fader sends on the individual channels feeding it. That behaviour has always been there.
Traditionally, if you wanted proportional movement including sends, you’d ride the channels themselves, use VCAs, or automate the FX returns. Subgroups were mainly for shared processing and section balance, not as a cascading gain controller.
So it’s not really a modern DAW limitation. It’s just how console signal flow has worked for decades.
And I agree on the dynamics point. Getting movement and depth without leaning on the mix bus is hard. That’s more about how you stage and automate than subgroup topology.
So in plain console terms, most people either move the channels, use VCAs, or let the FX returns become part of the dynamic movement.
I guess having a taste of Reaper has wrecked me really
Just being able to link the Parent fader to relative value of child sends solves it all very easily.
Maybe Ive been watching too much MWTM etc…I or top down stuff…I like both and it really works, Im also send through a brauer type setup
Yeah, that makes sense. Once you get used to Reaper’s parent/child behaviour it definitely changes how you think about gain structure.
Cubase just approaches it from a more traditional console mindset, so you end up solving it the old-school way rather than structurally.
And if you’re working top-down or running a Brauer-style setup, I can see why that modular control feels attractive. It’s really just two different philosophies of control rather than one being right or wrong.
TBH its because I do a lot of other stuff diff now…so that add massive levels of complexity in cubase
eg with drums, Toms and kick are individually xover for subs, the subs go to brauer(SG1) and bascially have almost 0 done to them, then they bypass until the master and go via LFE and downmixed just before the limiter
The toms also have the subs set monophonically/and sequence side chained because of my sub philosophy (its all recorded kit in the studio here)
Thats just the beginning and why every bit of complexity is just adding up to what I did rougly in Reaper in a hidden templated way that you dont even know about…but yeah its missing too many other things to go there yet…just a bit of BG
Even watching MB ride the main busses, the must also be suffering the same deal unless he rides buss D at the same time…anyway
