Buses in PT 9

[Media Man]

I just started planning a new computer build for PT 9 HD. My G5 won't support 9, so I was planning a move to a Windows box where I can still use PCI slots for my HD3 PCI cards.

But I've just heard tales of doom from a PT guru friend of mine who absolutely HATES the new "busing"format, a change I was not aware of. He supports several film score composers that are cursing PT 9 up and down.

I use buses EXTENSIVELY in my style of working for submasters, stems, mix buses, etc., etc. On every version of PT I have ever used, you can assign the input and output of every channel to a bus of your choosing. Is that no longer the case?

I've been told that the channel output and channel input scheme has been totally changed to some sort of automated system where you cannot rename things. I've heard that the bus matrix on the I/O page is gone.

Before I spend a dime, what the heck is going on?

Mark

[plastikman]

I really don't think it's necessary to start the same thread twice. Especially because now you're going to get different answers in 2 different places, and that is extremely counter-productive. Download the PT9 manual and the What's New in PT9 guides, i'm sure it's covered there.

[Meads]

Actually the only thing that has changed is, that you can now map Buses directly to a phyiscal output (I don't know what for, though), and you don't have to click into the matrix anymore to define the buses. You simply create one, and choose if it's supposed to be mono/Stereo/etc. Then it just sits there - which is a good thing, actually.
You're still able to route ins and outs of tracks to buses, just like you always could. Nothing has changed here.

[Media Man]

Originally Posted by plastikman

Download the PT9 manual and the What's New in PT9 guides, i'm sure it's covered there.

I'm interested in hands on experience of the user group with the design change. I'm sure the manual devotes a page to it.

Mark

[digidesigner]

I see no problem using busses exactly how they were... don't know how someone can have any problems

[Dism]

Originally Posted by Meads

Actually the only thing that has changed is, that you can now map Buses directly to a phyiscal output (I don't know what for, though)

For busing the same output (say 1-2) to several physical outputs in multiple devices. That way, you don't have to pair off multiple master faders for different listening devices, you can map everything to the same output, and hear from multiple sources.

Plus, you can now CREATE a track with buses already assigned from other tracks. So you could create a track for bouncing to and pre-assign the outputs from other tracks and they will be labeled the same name as that new track. Saves SO MUCH TIME when busing down.

[Meads]

Thanks for the enlightenment, dism. Makes perfect sense. Since I only use the outputs to feed my speakers, and sometimes don't look over my fence, I didn't see it. :)

Sent from my HTC HD2 using Tapatalk

[plastikman]

Originally Posted by Media Man

I'm interested in hands on experience of the user group with the design change. I'm sure the manual devotes a page to it.

Mark

The thing is, I'm interested in knowing these things too. Unfortunately the answers are spread all over the place because you felt the need to post this twice. Had you only made one thread, all the responses would be neatly compiled under one thread, instead of having to jump back and forth to make sure you don't miss any. But go ahead and keep clogging up the forums. Thanks.

[Media Man]

Originally Posted by Meads

You're still able to route ins and outs of tracks to buses, just like you always could. Nothing has changed here.

So you are saying that in addition to any new busing features, it is still possible to bus the old way as in PT8 and before.

For example, you can assign the output of track 1 to bus 5-6, and then create a new audio track or aux channel and select bus 5-6 as the input to that track for recording a stem or creating a submaster?

I know this sounds simple, but my source just told me this is no longer possible.

Mark

[Media Man]

Originally Posted by plastikman

The thing is, I'm interested in knowing these things too. Unfortunately the answers are spread all over the place because you felt the need to post this twice. Had you only made one thread, all the responses would be neatly compiled under one thread, instead of having to jump back and forth to make sure you don't miss any. But go ahead and keep clogging up the forums. Thanks.

If you have anything to add to the subject matter, that would be great.

If I wanted to be told how to behave, I'd go talk to my wife.

Mark