Aux Tracks for Individual Articulations?

[notnewtodp]

I'm currently building a new, very large template and I actually don't use VEPro. I was previously using keyswitches only but my primary orchestral libraries are Spitfire and I've decided that individual articulation patches would benefit my workflow. However, about a third way through, a thought came to me. It's my opinion that each VI should have its own bus–and that's what I've been doing–but when using individual articulations, is it prudent to route each patch to its own individual aux track, or should I be sending them to common busses?

[FMiguelez]

Hi, notnewtodp .

I totally agree about having a dedicated aux or audio channel per orchestral family. But probably not per VI.

However, I would NOT EVER want one aux per articulation.
OMG! That would be a nightmare and an unnecessary complication. You'd be looking at projects with hundreds of tracks just for the orchestra returns!

What purpose would having separate aux tracks per articulation serve?

If you want LOTS of control without unnecessary complication, my suggestion is to simply route ALL articulations to the respective instrument aux or audio track. Then, you send that signal to the corresponding orchestral family aux (wet or dry, which allows yet another control layer at that point in the chain).
From there, you can send it to the master fader or make it pass through other control layers before the master.

If you feel you need more control than that in the audio monitoring/printing side, that may be an indication that there are problems in the MIDI programming.

[labman]

However, I would NOT EVER want one aux per articulation.

100% agreed. I don't think DP would let me create 10,000 auxes!!!

[mesayre]

I agree with previous posts - not worth the trouble.

Two things to consider: Most of Spitfire's stuff does offer some mix flexibility - different mics, on-board EQ, and the like that can address some things if you feel the need.

Also, if you want to retain the ability to treat each one individually, you can do so with Kontakt's built-in effects. Compressor, EQ, delay, gain, all kinds of basic stuff available. Then you can still just have the one master out.

[FMiguelez]

I agree with previous posts - not worth the trouble.

Two things to consider: Most of Spitfire's stuff does offer some mix flexibility - different mics, on-board EQ, and the like that can address some things if you feel the need.

Also, if you want to retain the ability to treat each one individually, you can do so with Kontakt's built-in effects. Compressor, EQ, delay, gain, all kinds of basic stuff available. Then you can still just have the one master out.

Exactly!

Like you said, there are yet even more control points before the audio signal even reaches DP's aux or audio return tracks.
There's a wealth of stuff to tweak/edit there, from the MIDI programming itself, to the library's player features, to Kontakt or VE Pro and their myriads of plugins, etc., so it's really not desirable to duplicate/triplicate all that in DP!

---

OP: I think it's good workflow practice to reduce complexity in the signal as it progresses down the chain, little by little, so by the time x instrument reaches DP's returns, you're only dealing with one aux/audio track that catches ALL its stuff.
If you use individual woodwinds in pairs or in 3's, you'd get one aux track for each individual instrument, of course. From there, you keep reducing signal complexity for the orchestral families via aux tracks , then to a full orchestra aux or to a network of stem aux tracks, and then maybe finally to the single master bus.

Certainly there's no lack of places where to tweak at every point in the chain. It's just a matter of knowing where to tweak depending on the problem, and just let the signal flooooow

Having said that, I wrote all that from a "VSL perspective". I understand some Spitfire libraries are more focused on ensembles rather than solo instruments. And if you have samples with different mic positions, you definitely want to be able to exploit all that.
So, as far as I see, if I were using a library with those characteristics, I'd probably have to add some tracks/buses to deal with it and integrate it into my template. And if I constantly mixed libraries from many different vendors and they are that different in sound and other properties, I would definitely consider integrating into my template other signal routing options such as having an aux track per library brand somewhere in the chain in my template (contradicting some of what I mentioned in my first response, but such a situation could warrant it).

Either way, happy routing and knock yourself out creating your perfect signal/workflow