Audiobus: Use your music apps together.
What is Audiobus? — Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.
Download on the App StoreAudiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.
Generally okay use of send effects/bussing in AUM?
Hey gang,
Wondering if some of you might be kind enough to give this a look and tell me if you see any obvious errors or issues with how I’ve setup the effects chain and busses here?
The concept of send effects and using buses is relatively new to me. I normally would just use insert effects, especially in AUM. But after one of you was kind enough to answer a couple of questions not too long ago, determined that wasn’t the best use of resources and have just been playing around trying to understand how the send effects and busing works in practice.
What I think I’ve done here:
Riffer is driving all of these instruments. Most are just receiving midi from one of Riffers Channels and since there are only 4 channels in Riffer, some of the channels are driving multiple instruments (Ting is being controlled by the same channel that is controlling the strings for example and the first instance of BS-16 is receiving all four Riffer tracks).
I realize I could run more than one instance of Riffer here but what fun is that when you can mix and match? (Actually, just wanted to make sure I understood how this worked...)
I have all the instruments routed to bus E with the exception of Ting which is going to D. Both D and E feed into the master bus (M).
The way I understand it, any of the instruments that have a bus send set up in the effect chain, the audio is routing through the effect on that bus but it’s also routing a dry signal as well, I think?
Just wondering if this is fairly standard as far as how the busses are setup or if there’s a better/easier or more efficient way?
Thanks for any feedback! Brutal honesty appreciated on anything that catches your eye or your ear!
Comments
It looks like you set things up pretty good, except for Ting.
Nothing wrong with the Ting setup, but it is not necessary to use a bus at this stage.
Right now, Ting inputs to the AUM track, doesn’t get affected by anything, and outputs to bus D. Bus D applies FAC Transient, and outputs to bus M.
This setup is potentially correct. It is great if you plan on adding more drum/perc tracks and want these affected by the same FAC Transient instance as Ting, you just add tracks and output them to bus D.
But right now, you are just outputting the dry Ting signal to bus D, and nothing else. You could just eliminate bus D, apply FAC Transient as an FX on the Ting track directly, and output straight to bus M.
That is really the only thing I would change for efficiency. It seems like you have the right idea on how to use busses.
The main thing to grasp is bus sends in the output slot act as serial busses, bus sends in an FX slot act as parallel busses.
Output slot busses generally get combined to a single track as a sort of pre (or sub)-mix. A good example would be to combine a bunch of drum mic inputs so you can apply FX to the whole kit and record it to a single stereo track. In AUM, they also are used to create a Master bus, since AUM doesn’t provide one by default.
FX slot busses let you split your signal into multiple signals and route them through different FX chains, add them to various sub-mix busses, or even just create a dry/wet setup if your FX plugin doesn’t let you.
It seems you are understanding most of this already, but I thought I should write it for anyone else pondering busses.
Thanks for taking a look and for the feedback @Cracklepot.
I was guessing that the way I had Ting setup was essentially the same as if I’d applied Transient directly to Ting’s track, instead of doing it on its own bus. The way I landed here was that I was initially routing more than one instrument through that channel and it had another effect other than Transient but I decided to remove that. Ended up leaving it with a drum bus thinking the same thing you said (adding other instruments later).
But, also.... is it true to say that it’s exactly the same (as far as the sound) applying it as a bus versus insert effect on Ting’s channel? That was my logical thinking based on what I think I understand but as I was watching a master class done by Armin Van Burren (spelling), he’s working in Logic and he comments “we found out recently that it’s actually better to route through multiple channels as opposed to routing everything directly to the master track”.
He then goes on to briefly show how he has pretty much everything on the track going through multiple busses before arriving at the master track.
.
He might have meant something else but the way he says it leaves you thinking he truly means there’s a difference in the sound. I’ve tried to think through what else he could have meant by the comment thinking he just didn’t want to get ahead of himself on the material but I haven’t been able to think of any other way he could have meant it (I can’t imagine he just “recently found out” that from a CPU perspective it’s more efficient to run multiple instruments through an Fx bus as opposed to running multiple instances of the same Fx.). Strange.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not arguing he’s correct, just trying to understand (I don’t even really like his music, just thought it would be a good resource). If it’s all the same then this is probably just some bad editing on the production team and taking the comment out of context.
Maybe he could be using an analog desk, and likes how the warmth builds up by using multiple sub mixes ?
I could also imagine that by using multiple stages of sub mixing, you could could get your separate tracks sounding more unified by combining them gradually, in stages, instead of just once, at the master track. But I never heard of this being the case, so I would have to hear a demonstration or do one myself. But it seems plausible.
I always try to be as simple and efficiently as possible when I use busses, mainly to conserve computing resources, but also to make it easier to navigate my project, and on iOS to lessen the chance of the whole effort blowing up in my face 😏.
I always assumed that you could run into latency-sync problems, too, when using a lot of submix levels, but maybe that is not the case.
Maybe AVB was talking about something else entirely. That is most likely. 😄
This sounds probable not only due to editing/context but due to the source of the info! 🤣
If interested, here’s that clip. Still not really sure what he is saying but after watching again seems a little less black and white than I thought....
@Obo Here AVB appears to be referring to parallel processing. Where you run a dry signal and effected signal in parallel with each other. This allows you to blend the two signals to taste. It's used a lot with compression so that you can enhance a sound without necessarily overriding the original sound.
Pretty easy thing to try out in AUM - Set up a drum loop on one channel then make a send on that bus to a second bus that just has a compressor on it. Then experiment with how much you are compressing and the level of the compressor bus. This can be done with any instrument combination really and that compression bus could have any number of different elements on it not just one effect. You should find the results interesting. Good way to add subtle vibe without destroying the original part.
I think most compressor plugins these days have the ability to operate in an equivalent way as an insert on the bus you want to affect. This is achieved through a mix knob or dry/wet knob. Which saves you having to set up a parallel bus just for the effect you want to insert.
Thanks for this feedback and ideas . I bet you’re correct and his comment wasn’t made to be taken quite as literally as I heard it. I’ve been trying out the parrallel processing but very new to me so asking a lot of questions!
@Obo That's what's good about this place. Questions are always a good thing.