Effects as inserts vs. dragged after the instrument

[antic604]

So, I'm new to Reason 10 - working so far in Live 9 and Bitwig 2 - and I struggle to understand the difference (pros & cons) to putting effects either into the Inserts slot of the channel or after the instrument in the Rack.

What is the difference? What can you do (or can't do) with one and the other?

[Loque]

There is no direct difference, except if you use parallel channels. The parallel signal is grabbed BEFORE the signal goes into the insert FX.

I keep my FX "after" a device in a Combinator, that allows me to "bypass" all of them at once. You can do the same, if you add all your "after" fx into the "insert" section. The advantage of Combiantors are, you can build individual groups of FX chains.

[Wickline]

The main benefit of having them as inserts is that they can be routed post channel gain/EQ/comp/gate this way.
The only other real benefit is that the bypass button and combinator controls can be accessed from the mixer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wickline]

Oh and you can make a pre-FX parallel channel in fewer steps without having to manually move the wires around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wickline]

Like Loque said lol. Didn’t load on my phone til after I posted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[antic604]

There is no direct difference, except if you use parallel channels. The parallel signal is grabbed BEFORE the signal goes into the insert FX.

Thanks!

The main benefit of having them as inserts is that they can be routed post channel gain/EQ/comp/gate this way.

You mean the top row in Reason's mixer, where you decide the signal path? I was wondering what is that all about and now I know! Thanks!

[Carly(Poohbear)]

The thing about Reason is it can be confusing as you can get the same results different ways so you end up asking your self the question which way is the best way.

I think the best way is the way that suits your workflow.

My workflow rules are if I'm creating a patch with effects I add it all to a combinator so I can open it in new songs etc. Now if I use that combinator patch in a song and I need to enhance the patch so it sits nicely in the mix, I add the extra effects as inserts, this is just my rule of how I do things.

Note: If you create a FX chain in a combinator, that chain can be add after the instrument or as part of the insert on the mix channel or master channel.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Reason where there does not have to be a reason


PoohBear

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Music made with Reason
(Electronic) Poly Madness
(Electronic) Solar Dance
(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 ....... Nektar Mappings
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[antic604]

The thing about Reason is it can be confusing as you can get the same results different ways so you end up asking your self the question which way is the best way.

Oh, I get that and appreciate it, but I'm fearing for a situation where without knowing about certain limitation, I'll run into it long after it's already too late because my routing, automation, etc. is already in.

[Goodbye]

I would:

- keep fx that are related to creating the sound in a combinator with the device(s) - you can then save everything as a patch
- keep fx that are related to the context of the song - treating it in the context of the song - as inserts in the channel.

[househoppin09]

I would:

- keep fx that are related to creating the sound in a combinator with the device(s) - you can then save everything as a patch
- keep fx that are related to the context of the song - treating it in the context of the song - as inserts in the channel.

Excellent advice, I do this too.

[m.arthur]

There is no direct difference, except if you use parallel channels. The parallel signal is grabbed BEFORE the signal goes into the insert FX.

I keep my FX "after" a device in a Combinator, that allows me to "bypass" all of them at once. You can do the same, if you add all your "after" fx into the "insert" section. The advantage of Combiantors are, you can build individual groups of FX chains.

Just came into this old thread because I was wondering about this. Looking at the wiring / signal flow between the two options, this response seems wrong to me, unless I'm missing something.

If you put FX -after- an instrument, the sound of the effected instrument is going into the mixer. So it's: Instrument Output > FX > Mixer Dynamics > Mixer EQ.

If you drop those same effects into the Insert FX slot and leave the mixer channel in default mode, it's: Instrument Output > Mixer Dynamics > Mixer EQ > FX

So saying "there is no direct difference" isn't true -- it's a totally different signal path depending on whether you drop FX into the insert slot or have them "after" the instrument, as I've just outlined. You can toggle the Mixer to make it behave 'the same as' the 'after instrument' routing (change it to Insert > DYN > EQ), but the default mixer routing is notably different, and is the key point of distinction between these two approaches to using insert effects.

When the effects are "after" the instrument, the 'insert' location in the mixer controls is irrelevant -- there's nothing in the insert space, so moving it first or last makes no difference. If you had effects in -both- locations, then of course this could be used to have some effects come before the Dyn + EQ, and other effects come after it. Which could be useful.

Bottom line, the insert fx slot gives you *both* routing options, whereas the 'after instrument' approach locks you into one routing path ( Instrument + FX > Mixer DYN+EQ)

[selig]

There is no direct difference, except if you use parallel channels. The parallel signal is grabbed BEFORE the signal goes into the insert FX.

I keep my FX "after" a device in a Combinator, that allows me to "bypass" all of them at once. You can do the same, if you add all your "after" fx into the "insert" section. The advantage of Combiantors are, you can build individual groups of FX chains.

Just came into this old thread because I was wondering about this. Looking at the wiring / signal flow between the two options, this response seems wrong to me, unless I'm missing something.

If you put FX -after- an instrument, the sound of the effected instrument is going into the mixer. So it's: Instrument Output > FX > Mixer Dynamics > Mixer EQ.

If you drop those same effects into the Insert FX slot and leave the mixer channel in default mode, it's: Instrument Output > Mixer Dynamics > Mixer EQ > FX

So saying "there is no direct difference" isn't true -- it's a totally different signal path depending on whether you drop FX into the insert slot or have them "after" the instrument, as I've just outlined. You can toggle the Mixer to make it behave 'the same as' the 'after instrument' routing (change it to Insert > DYN > EQ), but the default mixer routing is notably different, and is the key point of distinction between these two approaches to using insert effects.

When the effects are "after" the instrument, the 'insert' location in the mixer controls is irrelevant -- there's nothing in the insert space, so moving it first or last makes no difference. If you had effects in -both- locations, then of course this could be used to have some effects come before the Dyn + EQ, and other effects come after it. Which could be useful.

Bottom line, the insert fx slot gives you *both* routing options, whereas the 'after instrument' approach locks you into one routing path ( Instrument + FX > Mixer DYN+EQ)

You are correct but there is one further difference, which is when using parallel channels. If you use 'after instrument' the FX will be included in the parallel channel.
But if you use the channel insert it will not be included/heard in the parallel channel.
So there isn't one approach that gives you ALL of the options, you need to consider your specific needs and understand when/how to use each routing IMO.