How do you folks use your mixbuses?

[haraldthi]

There's one thing that confuses me about Harrison Mixbus.
I'm trying to learn sound mixing through different online resources, and their examples are usually related to Pro Tools and other DAWs. So while it's no problem translating that to menus and buttons in Mixbus, there's often being used a fairly different workflow, with lots of busses used.

* One is for grouping of tracks, with fader, EQs and effects being applied on the group instead of each individual channel.
* One is for parallell compression, where the signal is sent to several different busses with a different compression on each.
* One is for reverb where you send various amounts of reverb send to a few busses with different reverbs, which is then sent to master. I agree utility busses can be used here, but it's fairly cumbersome to set up send from each and every channel. I have tried to set up a send from a mixbus to a utility bus and then to master and it failed badly, no matter how weak the signal.

To put it short, it's possible to use a whole lot of busses, and often to not such a good effect.
So what's the recommended workflow here? As in, an established practice it's possible to follow and have good results? Or eventually, different ideas on how this can be done to good effect.
How do you guys do it?

[mortenulysses]

That is a topic I try to get my head around, too. I think it is a matter of how you organize your session and what type of production you're after.

The problem is that, for the modern pop production approach, 8-12 busses aren't enough to include all the different effects and parallel processing chains you might want. When you're mixing a 3-piece blues band, that might be a different story and you might totally get away with only a couple of busses used.

The other thing is - and that might be personal - that I like my projects to be organized in a certain hierarchy so that the basic layer comprises all the tracks (and utility busses) containing the sound sources (individual instruments, reverbs, effects, parallel chains). The next layer would be groups or stems and this is what I use my mixbusses for. So depending on the size of the project these might be drums, bass, acoustic guitars, electric guitars, keys, vocals and so on. The final layer will be the master bus of course.

The great Michael White explains this process in one of his mixing lessons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FN5HgcRV0

Again, this topic is very dependant on your workflow and there is no right or wrong. I find the approach above to be the least confusing for my brain.

[haraldthi]

That is a topic I try to get my head around, too. I think it is a matter of how you organize your session and what type of production you're after.

The problem is that, for the modern pop production approach, 8-12 busses aren't enough to include all the different effects and parallel processing chains you might want. When you're mixing a 3-piece blues band, that might be a different story and you might totally get away with only a couple of busses used.

The other thing is - and that might be personal - that I like my projects to be organized in a certain hierarchy so that the basic layer comprises all the tracks (and utility busses) containing the sound sources (individual instruments, reverbs, effects, parallel chains). The next layer would be groups or stems and this is what I use my mixbusses for. So depending on the size of the project these might be drums, bass, acoustic guitars, electric guitars, keys, vocals and so on. The final layer will be the master bus of course.

The great Michael White explains this process in one of his mixing lessons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FN5HgcRV0

Again, this topic is very dependant on your workflow and there is no right or wrong. I find the approach above to be the least confusing for my brain.

Thank you for the link. Finally someone who explain to the level I like.
Too many tend to glaze things over, and you end up scourging the same ting over and over again in hopes of finally getting the finer details of things together...