Bussing - Routing - Assigning - IDEAS?

[jayprotools]

I would love to see this idea (or better) implemented into ProTools to speed up workflow.

Imagine you have 4 audio tracks Kik, Snare, Hat, Bass & an Aux track.

Now I want to send the 3 drum tracks to the Aux.
Hovering the mouse over the i/o on the mixer page,
whilst holding the C key (C for connect) click the Output of the Kik, this highlights.
Now click Output on Snare track also highlights, no need to press any modifier keys with the C key as ProTools should know that an Output can't route into another output so it makes an additional selection.
Click Hats track, it highlights too, then finally click the INPUT of the AUX.
ProTools auto assigns the next available BUS to the AUX input.

Taking it one step further, say we also want to Send the KIK signal to the plug-in compressor on the BASS track for side chaining.
Hold C, click on SEND A on KIK track, it highlights, then click on the Compressor plugin on the Bass track.
ProTools auto assigns an available BUS to the KEY INPUT of the plugin.

I am very aware of how you can do some of what i said already by selecting the 3 tracks and then holding ALT & SHIFT, select a BUS from the long list of Busses on 1 of the 3 selected tracks and all 3 tracks output to the selected BUS. Then selct the INPUT to be the same BUS on desired track.
But when your session is getting huge! I think this would definitely speed up workflow & is easier on the Left-sided brain so you can jump back to the Right-side ;o)

What do you PT Users think? criticism/suggestions.

Of course DIGI please hurry up with what many have mentioned previously:
-Restoring rock solid Stability
-non real time - FREEZE tracks function (make it still editable like Ableton)
-ADC in LE
-RTAS revision
etc......

[jeremyroberts]

Jay,

In my opinion, the existing paradigm works.

I have 3 tracks that I want to bus somewhere. I select them. I route them.

PT does not assume that the destination exists or does not exist. It's up to the engineer to determine where the signal flows. In my opinion, the software should never make this assumption.

Anyone who developed their skills on patchbays, outboard and actual mixing desks probably still think this way, and it's not a bad way to approach routing, as the audio always needs to come from somewhere and go somewhere else...

I think another layer of complexity is not needed.

My $.02

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by jeremyroberts

Jay,

In my opinion, the existing paradigm works.

I have 3 tracks that I want to bus somewhere. I select them. I route them.

PT does not assume that the destination exists or does not exist. It's up to the engineer to determine where the signal flows. In my opinion, the software should never make this assumption.

Anyone who developed their skills on patchbays, outboard and actual mixing desks probably still think this way, and it's not a bad way to approach routing, as the audio always needs to come from somewhere and go somewhere else...

I think another layer of complexity is not needed.

My $.02

I agree 100%.

[jayprotools]

Hi Jeromy,

Thanks for the reply.
I'm not thinking of replacing the way it works now, just an addition to it.
I'm sure the DIGI dev can take the concept further.

You still would be determining the signal flow, ProTools is basically providing an Auto Assigning BUS function and knowing what is an INPUT & OUTPUT of each channel.

Lets say I just want to send one AUDIO channel to a Stereo AUX.

Currently:
First click OUTPUT box, scroll down to BUS 63-64
Then click INPUT box on AUX, scroll down to BUS 63-64

IDEA:
HOLD C, click on OUTPUT box
click on INPUT box
Pro Tools assigns the next Unused bus (63-64).

As I mentioned previously you could do this to plugin KEY Inputs as well.

Of course if you want to have a particular set-up of routing, the normal way is still there, this would be just an addition.

[MixerGuy]

Originally Posted by jeremyroberts

Jay,

In my opinion, the existing paradigm works.

I have 3 tracks that I want to bus somewhere. I select them. I route them.

PT does not assume that the destination exists or does not exist. It's up to the engineer to determine where the signal flows. In my opinion, the software should never make this assumption.

Anyone who developed their skills on patchbays, outboard and actual mixing desks probably still think this way, and it's not a bad way to approach routing, as the audio always needs to come from somewhere and go somewhere else...

I think another layer of complexity is not needed.

My $.02

i ALSO completely agree!!!!!!!

[BaileyBass]

Originally Posted by jayprotools

IDEA:
HOLD C, click on OUTPUT box
click on INPUT box
Pro Tools assigns the next Unused bus (63-64).

Many of us have i/o setups with busses already named... "how do it know"? SB

[jayprotools]

Originally Posted by BaileyBass

Many of us have i/o setups with busses already named... "how do it know"? SB

Very true!

I'm not saying this will be perfect for every situation.
For me, using it as a composer it would definitely speed up workflow, trying ideas out & especially when you have to bounce VIs down to audio.

You could however have your AUX channels setup with the inputs already assigned labeled Verb1 Bus 3-4 for example
Then just hold C key, click the INPUT first on the AUX and then click the OUTPUT or SEND from the audio track, but this may take the same amount of time as it would now & your working backwards in the signal flow, maybe counter-intuitive but makes sense to me as i just want it routed quickly.

[jeremyroberts]

Jay,

A few rules for bussing that may help your workflow:

1. RIGHT-CLICK on a bus to name it.
2. NEVER, EVER assign anything to a bus that is not named. EVER.
3. See rule #2.
4. See rule #3.
5. Set your I/O prefs so that new tracks bus where you want them. You have different paths for different types of tracks.
6. Spend 20 minutes really thinking out your default I/O -- delete stereo paths that are used as mono (and vice versa), etc... If you don't need 128 bussing paths, delete them!
7. Spend another 20 minutes making the work you did in #6 better. Save it as your default I/O with a unique name. Make a library of your I/O paths and think about your workflow every now and then.

I promise that if you develop and embrace these habits, you will never be annoyed at PT bussing again!

[BaileyBass]

Originally Posted by jeremyroberts

Jay,

A few rules for bussing that may help your workflow:

1. RIGHT-CLICK on a bus to name it.
2. NEVER, EVER assign anything to a bus that is not named. EVER.
3. See rule #2.
4. See rule #3.
5. Set your I/O prefs so that new tracks bus where you want them. You have different paths for different types of tracks.
6. Spend 20 minutes really thinking out your default I/O -- delete stereo paths that are used as mono (and vice versa), etc... If you don't need 128 bussing paths, delete them!
7. Spend another 20 minutes making the work you did in #6 better. Save it as your default I/O with a unique name. Make a library of your I/O paths and think about your workflow every now and then.

I promise that if you develop and embrace these habits, you will never be annoyed at PT bussing again!

you forgot rule #8....
8. See rule #4.

To the OP....Andre Knecht and some others here have various great naming/labeling conventions for busses/tracks. Since I became serious about a logical I/O setup.. life is better. SB

[Brandonx1]

I do think the I/0 routing and buzzing in pt can be better. I'd love to see some kind of graphical map of the mixers routing itself somewhere. Sometimes it's hard to figure out a routing problem in pt now. I always find myself switching from I/o set up to the mixer and back trying to find routing problems. That gets old.
Best,
Brandon