Why send tracks to hardware outputs instead of "Master" track/bus?

[gopher]

I'm having a hard time understanding the concept of "Master tracks".

Specifically I'm having a hard time understanding why the sends selection labels refer to actual hardware outputs when I think I am sending my mix to a Master track/bus.

It seems like I'd want to select a send labeled "Master" track and then send the output of the Master bus to the hardware output.

The labeling convention confuses me as it seems like the sends from my tracks and buses are running in parallel to the master track and not in series.

Can someone explain the thinking behind this or perhaps the origins of what seems like a arbitrary naming convention? I imagine that it makes sense in some context that I haven't appreciated. I started with native ProTools 9 and am really just getting serious now that I have PT11 so I think some of the ideas based on the legacy of fully integrated hardware sometimes confuses me.

I was learning PT11 last summer and then set it aside for a few months. When I resumed this week I immediately remembered that this Master bus stuff confuses me.

Can someone explain what/why I am not realizing about this?

Thank you.

[albee1952]

Why send tracks to hardware outs? Could be to use analog summing. Could be to create headphone mixes for players. Could be to process audio in some hardware and then return that processes audio into the session.....in any case, there are several reason why you MIGHT want to do that. Only you can decide if you DO want to

I think you have some confusion going on, and some of that may be simply to do with naming(and you can freely rename buses, outputs, and inputs). First off, your session will have a Master track(or fader) even if you choose not to create/add one(it still exists within the virtual mix bus, and I would always use on in your session, so you can see if it is clipping). Now, if you want to route things thru a bus, BEFORE it goes to the master, then start by setting track OUTPUTS to an available stereo bus, but don't name it Master. Instead, name is something like MixBus to avoid confusion. Then, name your AUX track that is now the mixdown path something like MixBus, or MasterProcess(anything OTHER than Master, again, to avoid confusion).


Of course, its also possible that I am not clear on your question. As for me(and I always suggest you do what works best for you), I never use AUX tracks as a mix solution, because; A-I don't need to(but many do) and B-I don't try to master and mix at the same time(so I don't often use master processing in my session). I leave mastering as a separate step so I can concentrate on the job at hand(yes, it tales longer, but for me, its worth it). And, I rarely master inside Pro Tools(its too cumbersome and slow). I master in Wavelab as it has off-line processing, plenty of handy tools for mastering and much better analysis features. They do have an "essentials" version for under $100 if cash is tight. Food for thought

[gopher]

Thanks for explaining.

I understand "why" you might want to send to hardware outputs and if I was sending directly to hardware outputs it would make perfect sense to see it labeled literally.

What I am curious about is the naming convention where the outputs that seem to be going "through" the Master track can't be sent to something named "Master" but instead are sent to the same place as the Master track is sending to.

For example; My drum bus output is listed as "Main Out" (the output labeled "Main Out" in my MOTU896HD driver) but it is going through the "Master" track which also has an output to the same "Main Out". I can't select anything named "Master" even though that is where the signal is routed too.

On several other DAWs I own, I send the outputs of stuff that goes through a Master bus to a bus named "Master". That master bus is routed to the "Main Outs". If I want to rename the "Master" bus to any other name the change in name is instantly updated at all the sends coming to it in the project.

In other words, in other DAWs the label used in the outputs of all my tracks is literal and indicates where the outputs are routed too.

In the case of Pro Tools there doesn't seem to be a way to choose "Master" in the outputs selection and so I select the same output listed in the master track when I want to send something through the master track to that same hardware output.

It seems arbitrary and I am just trying to figure out why it's done that way.

Thank You.

[Bookerv12]

Hi there,

I think you are referring to a "Master" track in Pro Tools....

A "Master" in Protools is not the same animal as a sub or master on say a live mixer.
On a simple level, what the "Master" does is, control the level of a pair of hardware outputs: Say...Outputs 1 and 2. (Or main out)
That being said, you really have no reason to even show a master track, unless you want to change the volume of everything sent to those outputs.

A "Master" in ProTools can control any pair of Hardware outputs, or any pair of Busses.
You can have as many Masters as you would like.

What a lot of people prefer, is to bus their channels to a stereo Aux track, and then send that to whatever hardware outs that you prefer, again,.... main 1 and 2 in your case.
I'm pretty sure this is what you are thinking of.

There are a lot of things to take into consideration if you want to use a master, such as the inserts are Post Fader as opposed to audio track and Aux inserts.
That can be the cause of great heartache if you don't grasp pre and post fader inserts yet.

You really have no reason to show a master track, unless you like looking at extra faders on screen. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[JFreak]

Yes, and to clarify:

EACH AND EVERY HARDWARE OUTPUT AND BUSS OUTPUT HAS A MASTER FADER, whether you want to show it or not. So there are plenty of people (like myself) who like to see that fader whenever some output is being used. If it's empty and at unity, that is good information too, and you can easily see if it clips.

For example, that mix aux track you mentioned. Say you have a buss named "mix" and you route all your audio tracks to that aux track. You suddenly notice that something weird happened to your sound but can't quite figure out what. Now set up a master fader for the "mix" buss and see if it clips. It very likely does. Now if you just lower the master fader of the "mix" buss it is possible you get your sound back with one simple move. The other way would be lowering all other faders, but the likely solution in this situation (where you clip your mix buss and don't know about it) is that you try to fight it with wrong tools and instead of lowering levels (the proper way) you keep adding plugins to your mix buss.

Master Fader is your friend, learn to love that tool :)

[gopher]

Thanks to both of you for elaborating.

I'll get the idea of Master tracks.

I have other DAWs that have Main Out buses and they literally control the level on the I/O hardware... which means you can't insert EFX post fader.

I think I will set up a MIX bus and just use the Master track for level metering. That way all my tracks and buses can be pointed to a "Mix bus" and the mix bus can be pointed to the same hardware as the Master track. There will be only one place where the outputs labeling doesn't seem literal and I'll just learn to get used to that.

Thanks very much.

best regards,
mike

[Bookerv12]

That's correct.

The master simply controls those two hardware outputs.
It is not a master in the classic sense.

That drove me nuts years ago...
Now I never show masters.

Remember not to use the Master for automated fadeouts if you have any dynamic pluggins inserted.

[SpinningDisk]

Hey Albee1952, could you explain a little bit more on not using Aux for mixing?
Thanks.
Don't mean to High Jack😳

[gopher]

Originally Posted by Bookerv12

That's correct.

The master simply controls those two hardware outputs.
It is not a master in the classic sense.

That drove me nuts years ago...
Now I never show masters.

Remember not to use the Master for automated fadeouts if you have any dynamic pluggins inserted.

This is the part that I can't make sense of.

If I understand correctly, the reason you don't want any dynamics plugins on your Master track inserts is that they are inserted POST fader and so when you run a fade out the signal no longer interacts with your threshold settings the way you intended.

That makes sense to me, but what doesn't make sense to me is the idea that the Master track is controlling my hardware output level yet it can have EFX inserted beyond, or POST, the level control. That's the part I can't wrap my head around. On my other DAWs the hardware is post everything. I don't run any efx on them either, out of habit, but if I did it would all be PRE fader and pre hardware control.

I have an annoying habit of seeing circuit schematics and flow charts in my head and I can't make sense of this one yet.

I'm starting to think I am missing something, or misunderstanding something really simple. I am wondering if, perhaps, the explanation has something to do with the Pro Tools legacy of integrated hardware and my back ground using the "Native" model of third party hardware and other DAWs is part of why I can't visualize what is going on.

Thank You.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by gopher

If I understand correctly, the reason you don't want any dynamics plugins on your Master track inserts is that they are inserted POST fader and so when you run a fade out the signal no longer interacts with your threshold settings the way you intended.

It is just another way of processing. If you think about this throughly, you will find that fade out is just affecting the compressors threshold, which means as your stuff fades out the compressor ratio goes down. You can use it as an effect, but then again there are times where that effect is not desirable as you said.

Another way to think about this is that you kind of "drive" the compressor with the master fader level. And again, whether you want to do this or not is up to your personal preference.