Parallel Processing Question

[CephaloPod]

In Reason, or any other DAW for that matter, is there a difference between these three scenarios:

1. Parallel processing using parallel channels in the SSL mixer with the effect on one channel, no effect on the other.
2. Using the SSL mixer's effects send and blending using send/return values
3. Directly inserting an effect and using that devise's wet/dry knob

Of course, all three are blending a wet and dry signal, but is there anything different about them? Do they sound the same in all scenarios? Is there a difference in phasing/latency? Is there some reason you would do one process over the other? I'm having a hard time getting my head around this.

[aeox]

no there isn't a different as far as i know ( someone please correct me if i'm wrong)

but if a particular process introduces latency you should use the mixer channels because we have delay compensation now. otherwise it doesn't really matter.

( again, someone please correct me if i'm wrong!)

[Loque]

I dont know the details of other DAWs, but i highly recommend reading the chapter in the Reason manual.

The main limitations are: no PDC inside Combinators or Channels, no measuring of RE and some RE do not report their delay correctly.

[dioxide]

Using a send will apply any insert effects to the sound before it is sent to the send effect. Parallel channels don't work like this. Dry wet insert is mainly a volume compared to using sends. I'd recommend reading the manual on the routing of the mixer and doing some experiments to see how the routing order works.

[Carly(Poohbear)]

If you had just one effect after your sound device(s) which had a wet/dry knob on it then you can make all 3 ways sound the same.

It all changes when you have 2 effect devices or more:-
Are you going to run these in series or parallel?
What is the effect doing?
What are you trying to achieve?

Depending on the answers depends which routes you go down and a lot of it comes down to your workflow.

So if I was designing a sound and using effects as part of that sound design I would put it all in a combinator so I can save it as a patch (may use a 14:2/6:2 mixer).
if I then wanted to use that patch in a song but wanted to shape the sound a bit more I would use the mixer inserts (unless I wanted the effect in between existing effects) and maybe here I would also use parallel channels depending on the effect.
If I then wanted to add a more global effect I would use sends..



PoohBear
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Music made with Reason
(Electronic) Into The Night
(Upbeat) The Players Took Me There Made in Reason 9 with heavy use of the players
(Electronic) 5 Steps (Video added) Updated

My Soundcloud Page

[selig]

Using a send will apply any insert effects to the sound before it is sent to the send effect. Parallel channels don't work like this. Dry wet insert is mainly a volume compared to using sends. I'd recommend reading the manual on the routing of the mixer and doing some experiments to see how the routing order works.

^^These are important distinctions!
There is one more distinction which is that the dry/wet approach controls the volume of BOTH the dry (original) and the wet signal. Plus, you can use an effect with a dry/wet control ANYWHERE in the signal path, including totally independent of the SSL mixer if you like.

Using a send, you are controlling only the level of the wet signal (with the send knob).

Using a parallel channel is similar to using a send except for as mentioned above: the signal is tapped PRE dynamics/EQ/Inserts.

IMO each one has it's applications.
•I use parallel channels when I want to add an independent layer to an existing sound and process it separately using totally different EQ/Dynamics settings etc.
•I use a dry/wet control when I have a device that gives me control of both the dry and wet level (otherwise it's difficult to control IMO), or when the level of both dry and wet is known.
•I use a send when I wish to share one effect across several channels, typically never for non-linear FX such as compression/saturation distortion because these behave differently when acting on multiple sources.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[dioxide]

One disadvantage of using Wet-Dry inserts is that you typically can't process the two signals separately. With a Parallel channel or Send effect you might be able to add some stereo processing or EQ to the Reverb without altering the original dry signal.

Recently I have been adding all my Insert effects into Mix Channel Inserts and wiring them up as Send Effects. This doesn't play well with the Mute/Solo on the Mixer but it does allow you to use the Mixer EQ to roll off the low end on Reverbs and Delays. Just make sure you change the channel strip settings to that the Insert is Pre-EQ and Dynamics. It also allows you to better see how much signal you are sending to the effects.

[selig]

One disadvantage of using Wet-Dry inserts is that you typically can't process the two signals separately. With a Parallel channel or Send effect you might be able to add some stereo processing or EQ to the Reverb without altering the original dry signal.

Recently I have been adding all my Insert effects into Mix Channel Inserts and wiring them up as Send Effects. This doesn't play well with the Mute/Solo on the Mixer but it does allow you to use the Mixer EQ to roll off the low end on Reverbs and Delays. Just make sure you change the channel strip settings to that the Insert is Pre-EQ and Dynamics. It also allows you to better see how much signal you are sending to the effects.

Great point, and it's worth mentioning that using a dry/wet control OR a parallel channel for simple compression on it's own is basically no different that using the ratio control on an insert compressor. It's only when you add additional processing on one or the other channel that you see any advantage IMO.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[aeox]

ok, so i was wrong!

[selig]

ok, so i was wrong!

I wouldn't say you are outright "wrong"…

It is possible to create the same results with all three processes, providing you're talking about only one FX process. The differences come from how easy it is to get to those same destinations, just like saying you can travel across town by walking, car, or bus, but each have advantages and disadvantages (especially if you're carrying heavy objects, in a hurry, or it's raining, or if you have multiple stops to make along the way, etc.).

As an example, if you want to keep the original/dry signal at it's original level, then a dry/wet control makes that more difficult than a send/return or parallel channel. OTOH, if you want the quickest route to simple parallel processing, then a dry/wet control is your best bet.

[CephaloPod]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. This does clarify things a bit.