Master Faders

[travisbrown]

So...what's the benefit of Master faders over Aux tracks?

Say I want to create a Drums Buss. I route all my drum tracks to Buss 5-6 and create an Aux track with input Buss 5-6 and Output L/R.

Then what's the advantage of a master fader? It seems just duplicates controls the Aux track.

Can someone explain a setup where the master fader adds something, or where I don't have to create an aux track?

thanks.

[Don T]

Hello,
Well.........guess that all depends on what your trying to do. Sometimes I compress the drums individually, sometimes on a submix (aux). Sometimes I like puting a little compression on the two mix because it makes the musicians sound like they used dynamic interplay during solo's and such. All depends on the flavor de jur.

[toodamnhip]

Good question..

Don T didn't give an answer..I use both and have always used only one master for the final output and used auxes on all sub tracks/sections. But I know you can instead use masters..I too would like to hear anyone comment on a real advantage to either...

I think a Master track flds down to mono where an aux doesn;t..that's one thing I can think of...

Oh yeah..and Auxes can have sends out to verbs etc whereas master buses have no sends...

Magic Dave..where are you?

[Timeline]

I never tried an aux for a master. That sounds interesting.

[Mr_Clifford]

Can someone explain a setup where the master fader adds something, or where I don't have to create an aux track?

thanks.

A Master Fader can be great if you want to buss something and process it on the way to somewhere else, rather that routing to an aux buss, then having to route from that aux buss to another track. You just set the Master Fader to that buss and do the processing en-route. Basically you end up using 1 buss instead of two.

Can't think of any examples at the moment, but I have found it handy in the past.

[Shooshie]

I used to use Masters; now I use mainly Auxes. Masters can be handy short-cuts, if you want to put some processors on your final 2-track. The last processor on such a Master would probably be your limiter, such as the Waves L2 or L3. If you do Reverb in a separate track, outputting to your Main Outs, the Master gives you a place to process the Reverb with the rest of your mix, all as one. In other words... Mastering.

In contrast, to do this with an Aux requires routing the Reverb as well as your main mix into the Aux, then routing the Aux to your Main-Outs. So, the Master track can be a quicker, easier way to do things. Or, it can also be a pain in the rumpus. Let's say you have your mix set up to output into Main Outs part of the time, but you have other out tracks you want to run it through for part of the time. For example, let's say you have interfaces set up to play through 3 different sets of monitors. You want to hear your mix in three different settings, so you play back through high-end monitors, then through your Yamaha NS10's for "standard fare," and finally through some cheap speakers for your "boom-box" mix. You can select any of the three outputs. Well, if you've got your mastering done on a Master Track, then you also have to change the outs on your Master Fader. That's right, two changes will be necessary for each setup. That's why I use Auxes, and just change the output on the Aux, and I'm done.

There are probably some finer points for using Master Tracks, but I have not learned them. Perhaps someone here will have some good pointers for us all.


Shooshie

[Shooshie]

One other disadvantage of the Master Fader is the potential for (recursive) double-processing. For example:

1) you bounce a 2 track of your mix, and in the process, you have it import the 2-track into your mix.
2) That is, you now have a new track which is the sum of your entire mix.
3) Naturally, you want to hear your bounced 2-track, so you route it to the Main Out and mute the actual mix.
4) As you play, you notice that it sounds different from your original mix, so you do a reversed polarity summation but you can't get anywhere close to silence when the two "identical" examples are summed.
5) Worried, you post in UnicorNation that DP sux because the bounce doesn't sound anything like the mix.
6) Finally, you notice that you're playing it through the Main Outs, but that Master track is still turned on. That means...
7) The full mix (bounced to stereo track) is now being processed a 2nd time as it goes out the Master Track.
8 ) Now you go back to UnicorNation and pretend that your bounced track suddenly started working all right, proving that DP just can't be trusted. It will unexpectedly...
9) change the sound of your tracks when you least expect it, but you're...
10) glad that it's finally working.
Whew!


Shooshie

[Tares]

^^^ LOL!! That happened to me couple of years before almost exactly as you had described it except for the part of ranting in UnicorNation because I haven't discovered the site yet but if I had I would have, probably.

[Tim]

Fold down!

[Timeline]

I wish we had sends from master faders!!! Or... a send plugin.

The only reason to mess with aux as masters IMHO is that. I love slap and a bit of verb on the entire track mix when there is enough detail in the effects.
Usually requires careful level to keep it clean. hard hit mix busses seem to destroy detail. I wonder if 64 bit will improve detail and headroom for just such implementation?

[magicd]

A Master Fader does not have a separate input and output. A Master Fader sits on a bus or interface output.

The Master Fader does also have the fold down button. These are the two main reasons to use a Master Fader instead of an Aux Track.

An Aux Track has a separate input and output. If you use a bus pair to get your drums into an Aux Track, you must then have a separate output assignment for that Aux Track. If the Aux track in this example is going to the L/R monitor outputs, that's fine, but what about the rest of the mix?

If the rest of the mix is assigned directly to L/R out, you now have the subbed drum mix plus all the other tracks going that output. What would now make sense is to put a Master Fader on the L/R output. That gives you a single summing point for level monitoring, as well as any mastering effects.

I always use a Master Fader with an MW Limiter on the last effect insert for my mix output.

I use many Aux tracks within my mixes for sub groups and effects returns.

Dave

[Don T]

Hello,
I use all kinds of different routings depending on what I am trying to achieve. Sometimes the vox group have their own Aux submaster complete with FX Aux's. The drums may have the same setup except the overheads go direct to the master fader. Acoustic guitar may go out the master but have an FX send to the VOX effects which come through the vox sub.

Does anyone use more than one master fader? Are they in series or parallel?

[travisbrown]

Thanks all.

This is all fine and good, but don't I have to first have an Aux track before using a master fader so I can assign I/O?

For example, I assign all my drums to Buss 5-6, tell me how to use a master fader instead of an aux track. Right now I create the bus. How do i assign the output for the bus without doing it in an aux track?

Do I do this in Bundles window? Right now if I bus to 5-6, create a master fader for this bus, it's not routed anywhere unless I create an aux track as well and assign an output. Except for folddown, this makes the master fader redundant.

Can someone give me a step by step on how they set up the i/o for a bus without an aux and control the bus with a master fader? This seems to me how it should work, but I'm not having any luck.

I'm not worried about the types of plugins people stick in masters or auxes or their reasons for doing so. I'm familiar with serial and parallel compression - these things I happily do with auxes at the moment and masters don't add any advantage for bus insert processing. I'm not having an issue processing; it's strictly a routing question.

Thanks all. I appreciate it. It's been bugging me for a while. All I really wanted was to use if on a drum bus and the master bus so I could folddown to mono easily to check mixes.

[daniel.sneed]

If you use several master faders [edit !] on the very same output(s), only the last active one will be on in fact.

One use of master fader in my workflow is getting it on/off whenever needed thru the blue button in chunk window. Sort of *standard mix* versus *mastering mix* swapping.
It's been very helpfull in sitting voice just right in the mix. My usual mastering compression changes the voice sitting a lot IMHO.

Also, very helpfull to disengage the master (and all its plugins) while tracking on low buffer settings. That is a CPU saving purpose.

[magicd]

This is all fine and good, but don't I have to first have an Aux track before using a master fader so I can assign I/O?

In the example of subgrouping a drum mix, the Aux track is indeed the subgroup. That's an appropriate use of an Aux track.

For example, I assign all my drums to Buss 5-6, tell me how to use a master fader instead of an aux track. Right now I create the bus. How do i assign the output for the bus without doing it in an aux track?

The only way to pass a bus to an interface output assignment is through an Aux track or audio track. A Master fader can not take one input and send it to a different output.

Do I do this in Bundles window?

You can create and name busses in the Bundles window. You do not create or assign Aux tracks or Master Faders in the Bundles window.

I do name my busses so I know what they are being used for. The bus pair being used for the drum sub mix gets named "DrumBus". The Aux track I use for the subgroup gets named "DrumSub".

If I use a bus for a reverb send, I name that bus "VerbBus". The Aux track that is used for the effect return gets called "VerbRet".

Right now if I bus to 5-6, create a master fader for this bus, it's not routed anywhere unless I create an aux track as well and assign an output. Except for folddown, this makes the master fader redundant.

Yes, in this regard, the Master Fader on the bus is redundant to the Aux track. Use the Aux track for the drum sub group. Use a Master Fader for final mix output.


Would there ever be a reason to use more than one Master Fader? I can think of a few circumstances.

Let's say you use track sends to create separate monitor mixes. Sends can be assigned directly to interface outputs. Perhaps you assign sends 1-2 from each of your audio tracks to outputs 7-8 on your audio interface. Those outputs go to a headphone amp for a monitor mix.
Maybe you also have sends 3-4 from all your tracks assigned to interface outputs 5-6 for another headpohne mix.

And of course the track outputs and Aux track subgroups are all assigned to interface outputs 1-2 for the main mix.


And let's say you connect output 4 from your audio interface to an external effects device. You can assign sends from your audio tracks to interface ooutput 4 for an external effects send.

So now you have four good places to use Master Faders. The Master Faders you assign to outputs 5-6 and 7-8 are master volumes for their respective headphone mixes. The Master Fader you assign to interface output 4 is an effect send master. Etc...

Dave