Which uses the least cpu, bus-object or aux-object?

Hi everybody,

 

As the topic states: which uses the least cpu, bus-object or aux-object?

 

thanks!

I don't think digital routing uses any significant cpu, it's more the plugin you use.

A good thing to consider – which you can sort-of see from the mixer setup – is, "how many consecutive stages are in the signal path?"  Each stage has to be completed on the signal before the signal can be sounded:  two CPU cores can't be doing the work in parallel if you are producing the sound "in real time."  (Versus an off-line "bounce.")

 

Also if you are using Library patches take a look at the resulting setup and see how it can be simplified:  you might see lots of copies of the same "room," or there might be stages which – when you experimentally turn them off – don't seem to have any perceptible difference in the sound at all!  (Patches are designed to show-off Logic by themselves, and to be easily added and removed.  That doesn't mean making the most-efficient use of CPU resources – Apple sells hardware, after all!)

Thanks both you guys for taking your time and replying. However, my question is about wether I should put my inserts on the bus-object itself or if I always should use aux tracks. This might be a wierd question for some people but I just want to know if there is any cpu win at all from putting your inserts on the bus object itself, rather than on an aux track; My projects are getting pretty big and I want to do everything that I possibly can to maximize cpu efficiency.

By bus do you mean a track's channel strip's send?

By bus do you mean a track's channel strip's send?

yeah, the bus-object that you can create in the environment.

What you call a bus-object which I think is better known as bus channel - that you can create in the environment is different from a shared aux. It is for internal routing purpose only. It can't take an input from the "outside" and can't send it's output to another bus.

What you call a bus-object which I think is better known as bus channel - that you can create in the environment is different from a shared aux. It is for internal routing purpose only. It can't take an input from the "outside" and can't send it's output to another bus.

I disagree. From what I understand you can actually pass the audio from one bus-object to another, like this: INST1{out} => bus1{out} => bus2{out} => Stereo Out. And I am wondering if using the bus-object has any advantages over using aux-object?

To me what you describe is indeed, an internal routing. But whatever it is called I don't see any advantage in PLX.

Maybe this can help: How to Best Use Bus Channels in Logic Pro 

What you call a bus-object which I think is better known as bus channel - that you can create in the environment is different from a shared aux. It is for internal routing purpose only. It can't take an input from the "outside" and can't send it's output to another bus.

I disagree. From what I understand you can actually pass the audio from one bus-object to another, like this: INST1{out} => bus1{out} => bus2{out} => Stereo Out. And I am wondering if using the bus-object has any advantages over using aux-object?

Formerly I used BUS objects rather than AUX objects, but since Logic pushes you to using AUX Objects by automatically creating them as soon as you use a new bus, I forgot about BUS objects. However they do have an advantage: In some situations you need less buses. If you want to send a modified signal to other buses or sidechains, these will see the output of the corresponding BUS objects (if they exist) instead of the straight bus "wires". No need for an AUX object and an additional bus for the AUX object's output.

Interesting.

And now back to t-ride question: 

As the topic states: which uses the least cpu, bus-object or aux-object?

Interesting.

And now back to t-ride question: 

As the topic states: which uses the least cpu, bus-object or aux-object?

triplets addressed that completely.

triplets addressed that completely.

I agree. 

 

Regarding the difference, I'll give you an example where IMO it makes more sense to use a Bus channel strip: let's say you want to: 

1. Sub-mix some channel strips,
   
2. First, process the sum,
   
3. Then, parallel-process the sum.

(a musical example would be summing individual drum channel strips, lightly compressing the sum with a first compressor, then parallel compressing)

 

You could do this with only Aux channel strips, or you could use the Bus channel strip which saves you a bus:

Only Auxes: 

Set the outputs of individual channel strips to Bus 1, create Aux 1 to process the sum, set output of Aux 1 to Bus 2, create two Auxes with their inputs set to Bus 2.

 

 

Using a Bus channel strip:

Set the outputs of individual channel strips to Bus 1, process the sum on the Bus 1 channel strip, create two Auxes with their inputs set to Bus 1. 

I am wondering if using the bus-object has any advantages over using aux-object?

In short: Yes: the bus object allows you to process the signal on the bus without any additional routing necessary.