Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mitch Miller" data-source="post: 68375" data-attributes="member: 2673">Groups vs. Mix BusesI&#039;m reading through section 5.9 of the X32&#039;s user manual and I&#039;m wondering if I am understanding correctly.Would it be correct to say that a sub-group (as implemented in the X32) is the same as a post-fader mix bus with the each channel&#039;s send level set to unity?If so, why use a sub-group when a) it still uses one of your available 16 mix buses, b) you no longer have the *option* to control each level separate from the fader (i.e. the send level is strictly controlled by the fader; not the aux-send controls), andc) you lose the *option* to send to the bus pre-fader (since according to the docs, the level follows the fader)?Based on only those observations, it would seem a sub-group is just a post-fader mix bus with aux-sends set to unity.I&#039;m guessing I&#039;m missing something.&nbsp; Most likely obvious.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mitch Miller, post: 68375, member: 2673"] Groups vs. Mix Buses I'm reading through section 5.9 of the X32's user manual and I'm wondering if I am understanding correctly. Would it be correct to say that a sub-group (as implemented in the X32) is the same as a post-fader mix bus with the each channel's send level set to unity? If so, why use a sub-group when a) it still uses one of your available 16 mix buses, b) you no longer have the *option* to control each level separate from the fader (i.e. the send level is strictly controlled by the fader; not the aux-send controls), and c) you lose the *option* to send to the bus pre-fader (since according to the docs, the level follows the fader)? Based on only those observations, it would seem a sub-group is just a post-fader mix bus with aux-sends set to unity. I'm guessing I'm missing something. Most likely obvious. [/QUOTE]

Verification