Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

From what I see the Bus Object is just a subset of the Aux Object. Can someone tell me one good reason why I shouldn't just delete all the Bus Objects and just use Aux Objects exclusively?

Troy

>On 19/01/2006, at 11:41 AM, Troy D. wrote:
>
>> From what I see the Bus Object is just a subset of the Aux Object.  
>> Can someone tell me one good reason why I shouldn't just delete all  
>> the Bus Objects and just use Aux Objects exclusively?
>
>Because you still need bus objects to sub mix a number of tracks.  
>It's not possible to assign a track directly to an Aux object. It';s  
>also not possible to assign a track effect send directly to an Aux.  
>You still need a bus for that.
>
>Regards
>

But a "bus object" is not a "bus". They are two different things. I can (and have) deleted my bus objects and routed signals from a channel Out to an Aux Object, using a bus. Though I haven't tried it, I'm sure I could send a signal from the Send in the same manner as well. In other words, a "Bus" is just the virtual wire and it remains and functions just fine without a Bus Object. Aux Objects can function in place of a Bus Object just fine. And an Aux Object has Sends so you can do things you can't do with a Bus Object: like sending a portion of your Drum Group signal to a reverb that you are ALSO using on your Vocal Group.

> Aux objects do have a lot in common with busses and even additional functionality
> 
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Paul Najar
> Jaminajar Music Production
> www.jaminajar.com
>

Hate to disagree but you are incorrect. A Bus Object can't do a *single* task that can't be 
done by an Aux Object. A Bus Object is exactly the same as an Aux Object except a bus is 
hardwired to a certain bus as its only Input option and a Bus Object has no Sends.

After deleting all Bus Objects I can still route a Send signal (or Output signal) from a Track 
Object, Input Object, Instrument Object, or Aux Object to a bus that terminates into an Aux 
Object.

I challenge you, or anyone else reading this thread, to explain (in detail) one thing that a Bus 
Object can do that an Aux Object can't. JUST ONE THING. GO AHEAD, I DARE YA!!!

Peace,
Troy

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Paul Najar <paulnajar@j...> wrote:
> You're missing my point completely. All I tried to point  out was  
> that track & instrument signals have to go through a bus to get to an  
> aux. Weather the bus is created in the environment or not. That's it.  
> This statement was in response to your original question which was:
> 
> >> From what I see the Bus Object is just a subset of the Aux Object.
> >> Can someone tell me one good reason why I shouldn't just delete all
> >> the Bus Objects and just use Aux Objects exclusively?
> 
> PN
>

Cool. Then we agree, paul. Bus Objects can ALL be deleted because bus channels can go 
straight to Aux Objects which are better.

If anyone out there can list something a Bus Object can do that can't be done by just using 
an Aux Object instead--I'm all ears. Surely there has to a good reason as to why Logic 
offers *both* types of objects?

Any takers?

Troy

Hi Bus objects do not have sends on their channel strip aux do. Also if you are using LE you 
can only use 16 instances of each. L-Pro can have 64 instances of each. So it may or may not 
be that if you are a LE user and need more then 16 buses (or) auxes. You may need to use 
both to get 17 objects and then decide which one doesn't need to have its' own sends on the 
channel. But really at the end of the day. Who cares. Use what works for you. Taylor

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> wrote:
>
>   Hi Bus objects do not have sends on their channel strip aux do. Also if you are using LE 
you 
> can only use 16 instances of each. L-Pro can have 64 instances of each. So it may or may 
not 
> be that if you are a LE user and need more then 16 buses (or) auxes. You may need to use 
> both to get 17 objects and then decide which one doesn't need to have its' own sends on 
the 
> channel. But really at the end of the day. Who cares. Use what works for you. Taylor
>

Finally. Something I hadn't thought of. Getting past the alloted object limit. But surely that 
isn't why Emagic decided to have both types. I'm just dying to know a more legitimate 
reason. I've been pondering it for a few days and I'm sure there must be something I've 
overlooked. It's a bit frustrating.

Thanks for your reply.
Troy

Hi. You got it. REASON. Or rewire app.s can benefit. Busses allow the rewire objects to be 
routed to an aux object. Muting the bus allows the two mono signals to be merged together 
as a stereo object via the path of chan=bus(monitor off)=stereo aux object. If you don't use 
rewire guess it don't much matter.Perhaps there is a somewhat outdated reason also. With 
todays faster computers the additional cpu that using a aux vs a bus might seem irrelivent. 
But perhaps from years ago the smallest increase in cpu could mean Make or Break. Some of 
Logics stuff is somewhat obsolete by todays standards but is stil a part of the architcture 
from the original versions.T

> As I've not tried it I can't say but it's very possible that if you  
> had no bus objects created but you were using a "bus channel" to sum  
> the tracks to get them to the Aux then the -bus- output assignment  
> might still be in place and the only way to change that assignment  
> would be to go create the bus object and change it.
> 

If I'm understanding you right, I think you are saying that setting a Bus Object to "No Output" 
terminates that Bus Channel. If this were the case I could see why creating a new Bus Object 
might be the only way to open that Bus Channnel back up. But what I have discovered is that 
a Bus Channel never terminates--no matter what Objects are tapping into its signal--and no 
matter what those objects are doing with the singal once they are "tapped in".

So I stick to my guns. There is no purpose for Bus Objects whatsoever.

Troy

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Paul Najar <paulnajar@j...> wrote:
>
> On 22/01/2006, at 7:05 AM, GAmoore@a... wrote:
> 
> > Logic didn't just spring fully formed into all it is today. The  
> > entire audio part was added on, and expanded. In fact, AFAIK  
> > nothing has been added to midi for years. So there may be more than  
> > one way of doing things (e.g. track mute and channel mute), or  
> > there may have started with something like busses, and then decided  
> > to expand to aux's but not want to hose those people who already  
> > using buses.
> 
> Yes. To maintain old song compatibility...

I had considered backwards compatibilty as a possible explanation as to why there are 
buses in Logic. And if there was something a Bus could do that an Aux Object can't it 
would make perfect since. But it seems to me that Logic would have just updated data files 
to show Aux Objects instead of Bus Objects. Nothing loss, nothing screwed up.

Sorry if I seem so argumentative, I welcome your input. The whole thing just has a me a 
little perplexed. I'm over it now though. My Bus Objects are all deleted and my setup is a 
little easier to understand now (not to mention a little leaner). Some day maybe I'll bump 
into Gerhard and I'll ask him why he left the Bus Objects in!

Troy

HiWhen you turn the output off for the bus obect that is linked to an aux. As P said you are 
simply turning the audio off. So you don't get dedundant sources. You can then remove the 
bus from the envoroment so it removes clutter and a situation were you are scratching your 
head wondering what that does til you rmember. But even then you are not removing the bus 
from the signal flow you are simply making the object invisible. I understand the debate as 
just that. There is no rite or whatever.  Just personal preference and the way people are used 
to going about routings. Bus objects seem to be available for one other reason. I see it as 
Emagic attempting the journey of logic as having a user friendly view. Something along the 
lines of what would be an actual recording desk in a studio. T

I think you guys are misunderstanding me so I'll try a little harder to explain
what I'm saying:

Paul: if you create an Environment from scratch. There is no need, whatsoever,
to even create a Bus Object. You will see that creating a few Aux Objects and
assigning them to their respective Bus Channels works perfectly. You mention
creating a Bus Object and then not using it (but turning the Output off). I'm
saying--don't even create Bus Objects--they aren't neccessary. It's obvious that
they just confuse people as evidenced by this tread. I deleted mine and
everything is simpler and I still have all previous functionality.

taylormorgantaylor: when referring to Bus Objects you say that by "removing the
bus from the signal flow you are simply making the object invisible." This is
not true. If you delete an object, of any type, in the environment, it is
*gone*. To confirm this, open your Audio Configuration window and have a look
around. The All Objects view in the Environment would suffice as well.


Hope this helps clear it up a bit.
Troy

Hi.. No this is what I said  "You can then
remove the
bus from the envoroment so it removes clutter and a situation were you are
scratching your
head wondering what that does til you rmember. But even then you are not
removing the bus
from the signal flow you are simply making the object invisible.  Please re read if needed.T                                            

>
>
 I unde--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Teeroy" <teeroy@m...> wrote:

>
> I think you guys are misunderstanding me so I'll try a little harder to explain
> what I'm saying:
> 
> Paul: if you create an Environment from scratch. There is no need, whatsoever,
> to even create a Bus Object. You will see that creating a few Aux Objects and
> assigning them to their respective Bus Channels works perfectly. You mention
> creating a Bus Object and then not using it (but turning the Output off). I'm
> saying--don't even create Bus Objects--they aren't neccessary. It's obvious that
> they just confuse people as evidenced by this tread. I deleted mine and
> everything is simpler and I still have all previous functionality.
> 
> taylormorgantaylor: when referring to Bus Objects you say that by "removing the
> bus from the signal flow you are simply making the object invisible." This is
> not true. If you delete an object, of any type, in the environment, it is
> *gone*. To confirm this, open your Audio Configuration window and have a look
> around. The All Objects view in the Environment would suffice as well.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps clear it up a bit.
> Troy
>

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> wrote:
>
>   Hi.. No this is what I said  "You can then
> remove the
> bus from the envoroment so it removes clutter and a situation were you are
> scratching your
> head wondering what that does til you rmember. But even then you are not
> removing the bus
> from the signal flow you are simply making the object invisible.  Please re read if needed.T                                            

Everytime you say "bus" you mean "Bus Object", right? In the context of what you wrote that 
is how I read it. If that is the case, you are saying you can somehow make an object invisible 
in the Environment, right? Do you mean by deleting it? If that is what you mean, I think any 
object deleted is completely gone. I'm not saying Bus Channels can be deleted (or hidden) but 
Bus Objects can be deleted, and once they are they are completely gone.

Please eleborate if I'm still misunderstanding you?

Hi If you remove it from the enviroment it has not made its' effect null and void. It first must 
be available in the enviroment to turn its' input on or off. It is not longer needed to be seen. 
Also you can have multiple aux objests recieving the same send from a bus object as their 
input which can lead to more complex paralel routings.. T

Hi.. YES yes DELETE it and see for yourself. T

I will make it simple for you. Clik a track and see how many bus objects you can choose. 
Now go to global view and see how many are there. If you couldn't see them then what you 
are saying they wouldn't be able to be selected cause they don't exist. T    SAVVY?

Hi. Now part2. Do the same thing with aux objects. If you can't see them you can't select 
them. The difference?? T

Hi.Also. Not sure about this but signal via a bus object can enter an aux as pre or post 
fader.Just a thought. Or is there a way of doing that by simply using an aux? If so I'd be 
happy to hear it. Now I'm starting to get a bit more excited about the whole thing. Cool. So 
how would I have that flexability? By using only aux objects? T

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> wrote:
>
>   I will make it simple for you. Clik a track and see how many bus objects you can choose. 
> Now go to global view and see how many are there. If you couldn't see them then what you 
> are saying they wouldn't be able to be selected cause they don't exist. T    SAVVY?

What you are seeing are "Bus Channels" not "Bus Objects". They are two different things that 
share similar names.

Case closed.

Hi OK define the difference. I'm more than willing to learn. T

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> 
wrote:
>
>   Hi.Also. Not sure about this but signal via a bus object can enter an aux as pre or post 
> fader.Just a thought. Or is there a way of doing that by simply using an aux? If so I'd be 
> happy to hear it. Now I'm starting to get a bit more excited about the whole thing. Cool. 
So 
> how would I have that flexability? By using only aux objects? T
>

After reading my last post, and going back through and re-reading my previous posts, you 
will hopefully better understand what I have been saying.

Step One: delete ALL Bus Objects from the Environement. Confirm they are really gone by 
looking at Audio Configuration window.

Step Two: create a few Aux Objects and number them accordingly. Assign the Input of 
"Aux Object One" to "Bus Channel 1", "Aux Object Two" to "Bus Channel 2", and so on.

Step Three:  using a channel's Send button, send audio to whatever Bus Channel you want.

Step Four: Notice that the Aux Object is recieving the audio just fine. Just as a Bus Object 
would have done.

Advantages? There are several but I will list only two. You can now have a group of vocal 
tracks hitting Aux Object One. You can have a group of drum tracks hitting Aux Object 
Two. And BOTH of those groups can be hitting a single reverb plugin you have on Aux 
Object Three. You can NOT do that with Bus Objects because they don't have a send so 
therefore they can't be used for parallel fx routing. In other words, You can now send a 
sub mix into a sub mix--on an on--as far as you want to go with it.

Another advantage is that you can now have two different Aux Objects recieving the same 
signal. While the advantage here is not as obvious, one thing that comes to my mind is 
sending the same signal to two different external fx units, independently.

Does this make better sense to you now?

Troy

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> wrote:
>
>   Hi OK define the difference. I'm more than willing to learn. T
>

The difference:

a Bus Channel is like a virtual audio cable. These are internally routed and can not be deleted 
or altered.

a Bus Object is a type of Audio Object and functions just like an Aux Object except it has two 
limitations. It is hardwired to a single, specific, Bus Channel. And it also has no Sends for 
further parallel routing.

Troy

...another limitation of a Bus Object is that it can't be used with multi channel Audio 
Instruments. An Aux Object *can* and therefore has three things it can do that a Bus Object 
can't. There is nothing a Bus Object can do that an Aux Object can't. Therefore, there is no 
reason to ever use a Bus Object. Just delete them.

Hi. OK Here it is. A bus object is a bus channel. As is an  aux object an aux channel. You 
just said it yourself.Why can't you get it???Just because you don't need to actually SEE the bus 
channel strip does not mean it isn't there. If it wasn;t there you could not use it as a bus into 
the aux. And if you don't have it show in the enviroment you can't select wether the output is 
turned on or off.Perhaps you should try and understand the weirdness of logic. It befuddled 
me for sometime. The bus object is the same as the bus channel. That IS the way it is. But if 
you can help define it as other than that please enlighten me.Taylor

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> wrote:
 The bus object is the same as the bus channel. That IS the way it is. But if 
> you can help define it as other than that please enlighten me.Taylor
>

I'm trying to help you. Just realize that there internal hardwired routings (data streams) in 
Logic that are NOT the same thing as an Audio Object that has been created. The problem 
here is that you are assuming a "channel" is the same thing as an object. Until you see the 
difference, nothing I've said will make sense to you. After you see understand the difference, 
it will all fall into place.

Hi NO PLease don't try and explain it. GOD it took me forever to get my head around this 
stuff. LOL. I'm still very susceptable to being confused within Logic. It's almost like I needed 
an inturpetor to inturport the inturpetor. How's that for just the thought of it screwing with 
my already not very good spelling? T

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> wrote:
>
>   Hi. OK Here it is. A bus object is a bus channel. As is an  aux object an aux channel. You 
> just said it yourself.Why can't you get it??

Ps. There is no such thing as an Aux Channel. Only Aux Objects. Only the word "Bus" gets 
used twice. "Bus Object" which is a type of Audio Object that consumes resources, and "Bus 
Channel" which is internal wiring.

Hi OK How do I go about that? But in the mean time check this out..  
  http://www.electricsheep.org/   T

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Teeroy" <teeroy@m...> wrote:
>
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "taylormorgantaylor" <taylormorgantaylor@y...> 
wrote:
> >
> >   Hi. OK Here it is. A bus object is a bus channel. As is an  aux object an aux channel. 
You 
> > just said it yourself.Why can't you get it??
> 
> Ps. There is no such thing as an Aux Channel. Only Aux Objects. Only the word "Bus" 
gets 
> used twice. "Bus Object" which is a type of Audio Object that consumes resources, and 
"Bus 
> Channel" which is internal wiring.
>


I believe I've finally figured out the true difference between the Bus Object and Aux Object 
(aside from a Bus Object lacking Sends, Input selection, and the ability to work with the 
output from of a Multi Channel plugin that is used in an Instrument Object). The answer is 
related in concept to the fader "pre" or "post" idea but it is not the same thing.

The Bus Object is a "serial" object and when used the entire signal of the Bus Channel goes 
into the Bus Object and then a copy of the output signal is then rerouted back into the Bus 
Channel regardless of where the Bus Object output signal is then sent.

The Aux Object is a "parallel" object and splits the Bus Channel signal. One part of the 
signal goes into the Aux Object but the other part keeps going down the Bus Channel 
undisturbed.

This is the not-so-obvious difference between the Bus Object and Aux Object and the 
reason why we have both types to choose from.

==
Troy

The main difference in Logic\ufffds TDM mixer is (despite the bus object not 
having sends) that plug-in inserts on bus objects are post fader and on aux 
objects pre fader.

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de

Teeroy wrote:

>
> I believe I've finally figured out the true difference between the
> Bus Object and Aux Object (aside from a Bus Object lacking Sends,
> Input selection, and the ability to work with the output from of a
> Multi Channel plugin that is used in an Instrument Object). The
> answer is related in concept to the fader "pre" or "post" idea but it
> is not the same thing.
>
> The Bus Object is a "serial" object and when used the entire signal
> of the Bus Channel goes into the Bus Object and then a copy of the
> output signal is then rerouted back into the Bus Channel regardless
> of where the Bus Object output signal is then sent.
>
> The Aux Object is a "parallel" object and splits the Bus Channel
> signal. One part of the signal goes into the Aux Object but the other
> part keeps going down the Bus Channel undisturbed.
>
> This is the not-so-obvious difference between the Bus Object and Aux
> Object and the
> reason why we have both types to choose from.
>
> ==
> Troy

--- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Duemmler" <merlin@m...> wrote:
>
> The main difference in Logic´s TDM mixer is (despite the bus object not 
> having sends) that plug-in inserts on bus objects are post fader and on aux 
> objects pre fader.
> 
> Peter
> ---
> http://www.merlinsound.de

I can't verify your statement because I don't have TDM hardware. But when using Core 
Audio, a plugin insert is pre-fader on both Bus Objects and Aux Objects.

To test this, set an EQ with an analyzer in the insert slot. You will see the signal no matter 
what happens to the fader. This is true for both Bus Objects and Aux Objects.

To the best of my knowledge I have proven that the Bus Object is a "serial" object and the 
Aux Object is a "parallel" object. The following is how I conducted my test:

1. I sent a signal to Bus Channel "1" from an Instrument Object
and turned its output off.

2. I created one Bus Object, inserted a High Cut filter, and routed the
Object's output to No Output.

3. I created one Aux Object with Input set to Bus Channel "1" and
Output to the Output 1-2.

4. To test the relationship, I brought the frequency of the High Cut filter
down and noticed that as it it went all the way down, the signal pretty much
vanished at the Aux Object and therefore the Output 1-2. I could no longer
hear the signal even though the Aux Object volume was up and feeding from
that same Bus Channel.

5. To further test it, I removed the High Cut filter in that Bus Object. I
brought the Bus Object's fader  down and again, the signal vanished from the
Aux Object.

To me, that means the Bus Channel was effectively receiving the output of
that Bus Object even thought the Output was set to "No output".

6. Now I deleted the Bus Object (so there were no Bus Objects at all) and I
did the same test with two Aux Objects. 

These test results were different. The 2nd Aux Object still recieved the
pure, analtered, signal as it left the Instrument Object no matter what I
did to the first Aux Object. I tried changing the filter setting inserted
in that Aux Object. I lowered the fader. When I routed the Output of the
first Aux Object back to the same Bus Channel "1" the second Aux
Object then received the SUM of the unaltered Bus Channel signal and the
altered signal that was coming out of the first Aux Object.

This tells me that the Bus Object is a "serial object" and the Aux
Object is a "parallel object".

==
Troy