I Need A Replacement For Cubase. Not Ableton Either

- ask away
User avatar
kenada
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:27 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by kenada » Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:54 am

How? I am using SX3. The return of an effect channel can't be bussed to a group channel. This is the problem.

Well actually the problem is that you can't add a send effect to the return of an effect channel.

Heres what I'm trying to achieve.

Closed Hat with a reverb as a send effect, using the return of the reverb and sending a delay into that signal.

So I end up with:

1) Dry Hat Signal on Hi Hat Channel
2) Hat + Reverb on Reverb return channel
3) Hat + Reverb + Delay on the delay return channel.

Then I usually mix in and out, playing with pre fader sends. It usually sounds great, and is very very simple to do in Reason. However with the limited bussing pathways in cubase it's proving impossible.

Any ideas?
S Y N T H E T I K
COME DOWN
minimal tech - Dec '05

thom
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Montreal

Post by thom » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:39 pm

Group channels can be used as fx channels...and group channels have sends. I rarely use fx channels...as it is limited...

User avatar
kenada
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:27 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by kenada » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:48 am

your right they can. but...

I want to have a second send applied to the output of the first send. not the dry original signal. And third send applied to output of third etc.

This is not possible,

All you saying is possible is applying multiple sends to the original hi hat, which can be done in the audio/vst channel.

Is there any way around this? Or is Cubase really as limited as it seems?

I am very surprised other people haven't had this problem, or wanted to use this type of routing/bussing. Especially in making minimal type music, effects and controlling/layering them is implicit to the sound.
S Y N T H E T I K
COME DOWN
minimal tech - Dec '05

thom
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Montreal

Post by thom » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:29 pm

I stand corrected...Sorry!! I checked it out yesterday and you're right...but I clearly remember encoutering this problem and finding a workaround...What I think I did in the end is bouncing the effects to an audio track...but that sucks...

I'll reopen the project and check out wat I did...

Yes cubase lacks in routing flexibility...

User avatar
sohrab
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:00 pm
Contact:

Post by sohrab » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:52 pm

kenada wrote:Closed Hat with a reverb as a send effect, using the return of the reverb and sending a delay into that signal.

So I end up with:

1) Dry Hat Signal on Hi Hat Channel
2) Hat + Reverb on Reverb return channel
3) Hat + Reverb + Delay on the delay return channel.

Then I usually mix in and out, playing with pre fader sends. It usually sounds great, and is very very simple to do in Reason.
man I've never thought of something like that!
and yeah,it can be done in reason.I really like its real life surface

edwardgeorge
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:39 pm

Re: I Need A Replacement For Cubase. Not Ableton Either

Post by edwardgeorge » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:29 pm

kenada wrote:So I'm not really happy with Cubase, and before I make the purchase I'd like to try out another App.
[...]
So what else is there for a PC user?
Any Ideas?
You could try EnergyXT :D
http://xt-hq.com
It's a great and inexpensive little application that's a sequencer like cubase wrapped in a modular environment. IMO it's worth buying even if you don't use it as your main sequencer (which i don't). It can also be used as a VST inside another host.

User avatar
Brian Ffar
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:10 pm
Contact:

Post by Brian Ffar » Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:32 am

Why don't you just create a group track, run the first send to one FX channel, and then run the second send to the 2nd FX channel.

That way, your signal flows throw both FX, and you can control them individually?

1) Dry Hat Signal on Hi Hat Channel = Hat channel
2) Hat + Reverb on Reverb return channel - Hat routed to Group channel with 1st send routed to FX 1
3) Hat + Reverb + Delay on the delay return channel. - Hat routed to group channel with Send 1 to FX 1 and Send 2 to FX 2?

Will this not work?

Or...

Hat routed to Group 1
Group 1 Send 1 to FX1
Group 1 Send 2 to Group 2
Group 2 Send 1 to FX 2

would this work?

User avatar
kenada
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:27 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by kenada » Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:07 am

Brian Ffar wrote: Or...

Hat routed to Group 1
Group 1 Send 1 to FX1
Group 1 Send 2 to Group 2
Group 2 Send 1 to FX 2

would this work?
In bold is the problem. You can't route an effect return to anything other than an fx channel. I think Thom has the only real solution - bouncing the return tracks out to audio, which is not a viable option for me, as it doesn't allow for much flexibility.

Man, I can't for the life of me imagine why Cubase would have such limited possibilities. So what about Pro Tools/Logic/Sonar.

I don't know about Sonar tho. I got a demo version of it, and it looks well weird, and not particulary intuitive to me. Any other thoughts...
S Y N T H E T I K
COME DOWN
minimal tech - Dec '05

Post Reply