It is what you want it to be (and can be all of the above at once).įor large projects, this is going to be a pain to maintain, but if it works for you, nothing to worry about. Call it a mixbus, a submix, a folder, bus, a virtual instrument track, mono, stereo. The beauty of reaper is that a track is a track. If you want a premaster mixbus, make yourself a template and go for it. Structure your projects however you want. #Reaper vs mixbus free#Let me know what you do and feel free to send any tips or tricks my way! Is this a legit method and how do you usually handle the mixbus with larger projects? Routing or folders? I don't know a lot about protools, but it seems that protools use the routing system. However, I want to make sure that this method won't bring me other complications or other future struggles I should be wary about. From my understanding, there should be no difference between these two methods as folders also naturally act like busses. I think this would give me a better overview. So, my idea is simply to have the mixbus-folder being a standalone bus/folder that all other folders/busses are sending to via routing. It's quite the struggle making sure all the folders are within the mixfolder and that everything sits where it should. It works, but lately I've been really annoyed with it as my projects got bigger. Until now I've simply had the mixbus as the "top folder" so every subfolder (drum bus, vocal bus etc.) was under that. However, for a while now I've also mixed into a mixbus from the start (top-down mixing). It's an easy way to create busses, keep everything clean and mute/hide different groups. Previously, I've always heavily relied on reapers pretty intuitive folder system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |