[RMAParticipant]

RS – what about my answers is snarky, unhelpful and drivel? wow….

Fair enough. I can be hard headed. I have looked at manuals and literature. 5 minutes with the rep and I can then see my error. It was a totally pleasant and constructive conversation.

The comment was not necessarily directed at you specifically. Forums can be difficult enough as it is. I should not have issued such a blanket statement.

I approached this whole thing from the wrong angle at the start of this thread and I dove right in.

I do appreciate where help was really attempted, and there were places.

I am quite happy to say that I was wrong at the outset. It would have been nice to say that I found the help here however.

They did indeed make the groups work as claimed here and it is totally fabulous, but I did not see the matter in a straight-forward manner in the software.

[RMAParticipant]

Resolved. Quick call to A&H rep. I had a misunderstanding.

Took 5 minutes and the rep was very pleasant to work with.

Here though, I get the snarky, unhelpful and condescending drivel that makes up most of this thread.

I won’t be back here.

[RMAParticipant]

SteffanR – So what is the extra bus type for? I don’t get it

No bus supports both aux and fx sends.

Unusual if at all in a regular console but if you must you can work around this in a regular analog console. I see a need for it. Don’t want to do workarounds that don’t truly accomplish the goal. As much of it as there is in response to Ralf, please read what I wrote and overlook the one or two ill stated moments.

[RMAParticipant]

To better reiterate:

A new and specific bus type:
1. Able to send from this bus to all current bus types.
2. Cannot receive from any other buses -or- FX returns.
3. Receives only input channels.
4. Full processing stack as for an input channel.

Purpose:
To allow multiple inputs to receive the same treatment for FX and AUX sends.
Possible other limited purpose, but not to the point of negating the above two items.

If this has been discussed ad infinitum will someone please provide a link to that discussion.
I’ve been unable to locate any such discussion.

PS: I don’t know the provider of the bulletin board software but it is quite buggy.

[RMAParticipant]

RS – You can already set a bus as a input to another bus. But not multiple busses to one other bus.

I do see where some buses can be routed to others. I don’t have the desk in front of me atm.

I would need Aux buses and FX buses to be sent to from group buses, or at least some other type of bus. I believe that option is not there and for good reason. I don’t see it there up front at all. I do see options for FX returns and for channel inputs to be routed to these group buses, but no option is presented to route to aux’s and FX sends. In a top-down right to left digital scenario some of these items would likely result in uncompensated delay anomalies. As I do not see the capability I am looking for in Director, and also considering the top-down, left-right approach, I am thinking this is not allowed in this circumstance and for good reason within A&H design parameters. So I’m not going to ask for that circumstance for these “specialized” group buses. I have suggested another bus type of an exceedingly limited set of parameters of operation to fit a particular purpose, as it is that all of the buses present in the product are specialized and to purposes.

The request is limited in scope and breadth to the effect that I believe it should be doable so I have presented the idea. I want to hear from A&H, no disrespect is intended in your direction.

Please tell me I’m wrong and I need to look in another place for the answer in setting up a show in Director.

[RMAParticipant]

RS – Maybe A&H does not want to offer that feature, as it would get out of the safe zone of phase coherent mixing and they still have to weigh between pro features and not getting overwhelmed with support tickets?

I would rather ask them than to suppose I have the answer.

This is certainly not a common feature for an analog desk as the enterprising engineer has workarounds that actually work in the analog world. However, this request would fill a specific use case that cannot truly be addressed in the current implementation in this particular digital world.

[RMAParticipant]

I am hoping this request is simple enough for A&H, and that it has a provably useful use case for many people. To me of course, the use case is proven.

I did my best to look for prior instances in this forum for busing structures.

Not having the full context for reference concerning what you’ve said, I do not believe this is quite so simple as implied with the “Bus into bus” feature request. It depends highly upon what the individual hopes were for such requests. This request I am making allows for no other buses to serve as inputs to this one. This would be a summing bus with particular features for inputs only. Other buses do make special allowances, but none implement what I am looking for here but that I believe is possible to have.

I’ve kept my hopes to a minimum specification that would conceivably be doable within the current overall structure of the A&H implementation which is a main reason to allow no other buses for input. If they (A&H) can do that it might be even better, but I’m trying to keep this very simple and to a specific goal. In that I’m trying to think in terms of purely top-down or left to right with no looping back anywhere, within this particular request.

It would be super nice to essentially have a full fledged build-my-own-configuration-from-the-ground-up DAW inside of this product with full latency compensation and specs like A&H currently offers. I’m not even remotely going to ask for such a thing. A&H has built desks for years, good ones. I’ve been a customer before, and a happy one at that.

—*——-*—
Long story short, I do not believe at all that this is just another “bus into bus” feature request. This has a very specific use case targeting a very specific set of circumstances that I believe needs a solution in the real world.

[RMAParticipant]

Had a brain phart with the statement.

Simply:
1 Able to send from this bus to all current bus types.

Period.

[RMAParticipant]

Just got included in the counts for setting up buses. Yes I agree.

For setting up what I’m asking for I don’t believe this proposed bus would be allowed to receive FX returns however.

[RMAParticipant]

This line:
A DCA control does provide one control for I can place in the surface top layer but offers nothing other than level(s) control to that which is under it.

should have been:
A DCA control does provide one control I can place in the surface top layer but offers nothing other than level(s) control to that which is under it.

In my opinion this is a needful and very specific/structured use case.

[RMAParticipant]

The other buses do not cover this use case. A DCA control does provide one control for I can place in the surface top layer but offers nothing other than level(s) control to that which is under it.

1. I would like to expose one item for OneMix users and not have 2 or more items to be exposed to these users in many instances. I would like to simplify their existences here unless requested otherwise.
2. I would like to have convenient, one stop one strip control of FX for a grouping of inputs, as well as for final touch EQ and compression.

A DCA does not do this, and neither do any of the current buses do ALL of this.

Allen & Heath have configured all of the buses towards their respective output destinations and from their respective input capabilities with latencies and phase coherence in mind.

My request would be keeping to the phase coherence principles (with the proposed rules for the bus) and I’m hoping would not need more than a firmware update.

This covers a very specific (but common) use case that at this moment appears to have inelegant near solutions.

[RMAParticipant]

+1

[Author]

Posts