Routing an Output Pair to Multiple Destinations in PT LE?

[Soul Finger]

I am trying to assign 2 pairs of interface outputs on my 002 to Output Pair 1-2 in PT.

Is this option available in PT LE?

The PT 7.4 Ref Guide describes 2 ways to do exactly this on pgs 48 and 56. However, while it doesn't specify that multiple destination routing is an HD-only feature, the instructions it gives involve pop-up menus my LE system does not seem to have. Specifically, there are no Output selectors in my I/O Output window.

This is my first foray beyond the default I/O settings. I've spent all day with the manual and I am stumped. Am I missing something or is this function simply unavailable in LE?

Does anyone more familiar know how I could route an Output Pair in my I/O to more than one 002 output pairs with PT LE?

(I am hoping to do this via an I/O configuration, and avoid having to assign multiple outs to all tracks individually as I've read about in other threads: protools le -- dual s/pdif + analog out?)

Any insights would be tremendously appreciated...Thank you!

-A Humble PT (and GS) Newbie

[ElMosca]

Originally Posted by Soul Finger

I am trying to assign 2 pairs of interface outputs on my 002 to Output Pair 1-2 in PT.

Is this option available in PT LE?

I'm pretty sure this functionality isn't available on LE. When I tried, I ended up setting up a template session with the desired output assignments.

If someone else gets this to work, I'd sure like to know about it.

Regards,
++aldo

[jimdrake]

Yes, to route one output path to more than one physical output is HD only.

You can do it on the mixer though, by assigning tracks to more than one output path using ctrl-click.

If you don't want to do this multiple assigning to every track then first route each track to a spare bus. This can be your main mix bus. You can then use an aux input to route this mix bus to as many output paths as you like. Then you have to do your ctrl-clicking in only one place.

In fact, it is good practice to build a master section for your Pro Tools mixer, instead of routing tracks directly to outputs.

My standard master section uses one Master Fader, one Aux Input, one Audio Track and two buses. All the tracks in the session are routed to a stereo bus called MIX. The Master Fader is assigned to this MIX bus to make sure I'm not overloading the mix. The Aux Input takes the MIX bus and routes it to another bus named MASTER. I put any master compression on this Aux Input. The Audio Track then selects the MASTER but as its input and the output is physical I/O for monitoring. In your case you could assign the output of this track to more than one place. When I need to print my mix I record onto this audio track and don't use the "bounce to disk" command.

[psycho_monkey]

I was going to suggest the same thing, other than if you read the thread he linked to, it's concerning tracking, so adding in aux faders etc will add latency.

[jimdrake]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I was going to suggest the same thing, other than if you read the thread he linked to, it's concerning tracking, so adding in aux faders etc will add latency.

Yeah, for the mix bus, but why does that matter?

Cue mixes for tracking should come off sends from each track, so they're going to go a different route anyway, which could be slower/quicker.

Any latency added per each busing stage is smaller than audio-interface/driver/buffer/etc anyway.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by jimdrake

Yeah, for the mix bus, but why does that matter?

Cue mixes for tracking should come off sends from each track, so they're going to go a different route anyway, which could be slower/quicker.

Any latency added per each busing stage is smaller than audio-interface/driver/buffer/etc anyway.

That's true - I only ever track when there's a mixer with traditional cue sends involved, so it's not something that usually concerns me.

Come to think of it, why not just send the main mix to say 1/2, then a pre-fade aux send to the duplicate output - that would do the same thing?

The OP does say it's to save time...I think in this situation, you just have to realise that the routing flexibility is a perk of HD, and set it up for yourself. I'd rather have pre-fade sends anyway.

[Soul Finger]

Thanks for the feedback...I was hoping my frustration stemmed (bad pun) from my ignorance rather than the limitations of my system, but I guess thats why HD commands the big bucks! Ctrl+click here I come...

[s.d.finley]

I could swear I did this with my digi 001 on OS9 even on LE. I will check tomorrow!