Number of send effects in Reason

[Voyager]

This is one place where your approach is not a post fader send (the EQ is only on the original, not the send/return). The other is that if you move the fader on the source track, the FX doesn’t follow and will end up softer or louder in relation to the source (which is usually not what you want, once you get your balances right). This is why post fader sends are used 90% of the time or more as opposed to pre-fader sends.

Yes the way i use it is pre-fader, but as for the fader source track and the fx that doesn't follow you mention this is the reason why i group the source and the fx's under a bus channel in order to control the volume as a single track, just as a post-fader will do if it make sense.

Using sends should NEVER be mixing two dry signals - what’s the point? Also, no “resolution” is lost using sends, nor should the low end change or get muddier. I think we may be misunderstanding each other and the way sends are used…either you are not using your send FX full wet, and/or there is latency on the dry signal causing this muddiness you describe. Keep all send FX 100% wet - the “dry” signal comes from the original so no need to add it to the send/return as well!

You right when testing i realize that i may have not had the signal fully wet.. I made a new test and i indeed can basically do the same thing like adding EQ, sidechain etc to the ssl send. The only difference is that it's presented in a different way.

But i prefer to have individual mix channels for each fx and grouped under a bus with the source track. I think i have a better visualization of what's going on plus i can use the SSL EQ if i want or use a Selig gain in FX inserts.

For FX that are a part of the sound, I use inserts (easiest) or create a splitter and a more complex routing outside of the mixer (before it gets to the mixer), with separate Mix Channels if necessary.

Same, when a FX is part of the structure of a sound i go with inserts.

[selig]

This is one place where your approach is not a post fader send (the EQ is only on the original, not the send/return). The other is that if you move the fader on the source track, the FX doesn’t follow and will end up softer or louder in relation to the source (which is usually not what you want, once you get your balances right). This is why post fader sends are used 90% of the time or more as opposed to pre-fader sends.

Yes the way i use it is pre-fader, but as for the fader source track and the fx that doesn't follow you mention this is the reason why i group the source and the fx's under a bus channel in order to control the volume as a single track, just as a post-fader will do.

Using sends should NEVER be mixing two dry signals - what’s the point? Also, no “resolution” is lost using sends, nor should the low end change or get muddier. I think we may be misunderstanding each other and the way sends are used…either you are not using your send FX full wet, and/or there is latency on the dry signal causing this muddiness you describe. Keep all send FX 100% wet - the “dry” signal comes from the original so no need to add it to the send/return as well!

You right when testing i realize that i may have not had the signal fully wet.. I made a new test and i indeed can basically do the same thing like adding EQ, sidechain etc to the ssl send. The only difference is that it's presented in a different way.

But i prefer to have individual mix channels for each fx and grouped under a bus with the source track. I think i have a better visualization of what's going on plus i can use the SSL EQ if i want or use a Selig gain in FX inserts.

For FX that are a part of the sound, I use inserts (easiest) or create a splitter and a more complex routing outside of the mixer (before it gets to the mixer), with separate Mix Channels if necessary.

Same, when a FX is part of the structure of a sound i go with inserts.

Send levels following faders is half of a post fader send - the other is that EQ/Dynamics/Inserts ALSO follow, which is what most folks want most of the time.

I too like using Mix Channels for returns (assuming that's what you're describing above, correct?).

Conclusion: Send busses would solve all of this - you would still have 8 knobs on each channel but you could assign each one to a unique send bus to get around these issue. Could also use full stereo sends with pan controls in some cases, and the ability to tap the send post-fader, pre-fader, or pre-everything (like a parallel channel but with a volume control). So many things to add to Reason, so little time/resources!

[ljekio]

Unlimited groups of 4 sends from every 14:2 mixer device.

But these would all be "pre-fader" not post and as such not as useful IMO.

So?

2018-04-19 18-39-31 Document 1 .jpg (103.48 KiB) Viewed 1460 times

[selig]

But these would all be "pre-fader" not post and as such not as useful IMO.

So?

2018-04-19 18-39-31 Document 1 .jpg

Reminds me that I really wish the direct outs worked like on a real SSL, that is that they don’t disconnect the output of the channel when attached. That way you wouldn’t need spiders to do any of what you’re doing here. Also, solo isolate so Mix Channels would be more useful as FX returns…


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[manuel radioact77]

Hi again and thanks for the answers.

I believe my first post was a bit confusing. I meant to say that i wanted to pan the return effects and automate them independently from the instrument or source and it's original pan position. Not to pan the instrument themselves, or in that case i would maybe use an insert effect.

I use the parallel channels to mix the signals and add punch, or saturation, other effects, etc.
Normally i create the parallel channel and immediately copy all the settings from original channel and past them to the parallel channel (yes, i know any insert effects won't apply) and then work from there, depending exactly on what i want to achieve.

I'm aware that Proppellerheads Reason made its choice about emulating the SSL (and for the most of i really like it) and that the users should try and learn to work with it and around it.

So my question was in the spirit of working with what Reason has to offer. Not in the spirit of saying bad things about Reason. Of course i can complain about Reason, or Cubase, or Logic, etc. But that was clearly not the case here.

I'm all open to people saying "rething your mixing, try to work with only the 8 send effects" wich, for the most part i do. But my question was clearly, and despite some confusions, "can i use more than 8 send effects, or what are the available workarounds and if are they doable in terms of strictly mixing or in terms of more broadly production/creation workflow."

I think i got some good answers and was never expecting the "right" answer. Just a few good suggestions from users wich i'm aware will always reflect their experiences, styles and workflows.

I just think this is or should be a good forum to come in and try to have your questions answered instead of agonizing alone for 2 days about it.

Peace.

[Voyager]

Send levels following faders is half of a post fader send - the other is that EQ/Dynamics/Inserts ALSO follow, which is what most folks want most of the time.

Just to recap what i usually do. Let's say i have a Thor and want to have 2 effects. So what i do is create an audio splitter and connect the parallel out from the Thor mix channel to my splitter.

Then i create two new mix channels that i hook up to the splitter and those two new mix channels are going to be my effects. So now i have three mix channels, the source signal and two effects and finally i create a new output bus that regroup my three channels.

This way i can have a total individual control over each channels and an overall control over the output bus which also allow my effects to follow my main source. Do this make any sense ? I don't mean from a setup/workflow perspective which someone would may like or not to work this way but from a signal path one and at the end isn't this being the same thing as a post fader type ?

[selig]

Send levels following faders is half of a post fader send - the other is that EQ/Dynamics/Inserts ALSO follow, which is what most folks want most of the time.

Just to recap what i usually do. Let's say i have a Thor and want to have 2 effects. So what i do is create an audio splitter and connect the parallel out from the Thor mix channel to my splitter.

Then i create two new mix channels that i hook up to the splitter and those two new mix channels are going to be my effects. So now i have three mix channels, the source signal and two effects and finally i create a new output bus that regroup my three channels.

This way i can have a total individual control over each channels and an overall control over the output bus which also allow my effects to follow my main source. Do this make any sense ? I don't mean from a setup/workflow perspective which someone would may like or not to work this way but from a signal path one and at the end isn't this being the same thing as a post fader type ?

Almost, but not quite, because a post fader send would include the EQ/Dynamics/insert FX of the original channel and your setup does not.

If you, for example, add some dynamics which may change the gain, the FX won’t follow as they would with a post-fader send (or even a pre-fader send). A more dramatic example: if you gated the signal, the FX would not be applied to the gated signal. Or if you cut low frequencies from the channel, the FX would not have these frequencies removed.

So IF you do NOTHING to the original Mix Channel, the answer is yes. But otherwise, no. Make sense?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Voyager]

Almost, but not quite, because a post fader send would include the EQ/Dynamics/insert FX of the original channel and your setup does not.

If you, for example, add some dynamics which may change the gain, the FX won’t follow as they would with a post-fader send (or even a pre-fader send). A more dramatic example: if you gated the signal, the FX would not be applied to the gated signal. Or if you cut low frequencies from the channel, the FX would not have these frequencies removed.

I tried and you right about the EQ/Dynamics/insert FX not being followed by Fx's channels. But we can workaround this with the output bus and that one of the reason it is been created in the first place.

I mean for EQ and dynamics we could use the outbus bus instead the source channel and thus having the fx's having the same settings and following the source signal. Does it make any sense ?

So IF you do NOTHING to the original Mix Channel, the answer is yes. But otherwise, no. Make sense?

That's right, as for insert fx on the source signal, if i made separate channel fx's is for having a send type of effect. What i mean is that if i go with separate send fx's i usually never use a insert fx on the source signal, i usually just keep it totally dry and work around with my separate fx's channels and vice-versa.

So the idea behind this setup is that i can control things independently but still using the output bus for a workaround type of post fader if it make any sense.

[selig]

Almost, but not quite, because a post fader send would include the EQ/Dynamics/insert FX of the original channel and your setup does not.

If you, for example, add some dynamics which may change the gain, the FX won’t follow as they would with a post-fader send (or even a pre-fader send). A more dramatic example: if you gated the signal, the FX would not be applied to the gated signal. Or if you cut low frequencies from the channel, the FX would not have these frequencies removed.

I tried and you right about the EQ/Dynamics/insert FX not being followed by Fx's channels. But we can workaround this with the output bus and that one of the reason it is been created in the first place.

I mean for EQ and dynamics we could use the outbus bus instead the source channel and thus having the fx's having the same settings and following the source signal. Does it make any sense ?

So IF you do NOTHING to the original Mix Channel, the answer is yes. But otherwise, no. Make sense?

That's right, as for insert fx on the source signal, if i made separate channel fx's is for having a send type of effect. What i mean is that if i go with separate send fx's i usually never use a insert fx on the source signal, i usually just keep it totally dry and work around with my separate fx's channels and vice-versa.

So the idea behind this setup is that i can control things independently but still using the output bus for a workaround type of post fader if it make any sense.

A better option may be to use a splitter on the Direct Output of the main Mix Channel, and create three new mix channels (same total number of channels as your approach). The main channel has the EQ/dynamics and fader (plus any shared sends), the Mix Channels after the splitter are used as follows: 1) dry signal 2) FX1,and 3) FX2. In this setup you don’t adjust the dry channel at all, instead you use the main channel fader and all FX follow.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[chimp_spanner]

I like to use mix channels as send FX. For one, you get access to dynamics and EQ for the FX return on the SSL, as well as direct fader control. Secondly, you can shift drag each half of each of the 8 stereo pairs of sends for a total of 16 (so 1 L/R, 2 L/R becomes 1, 2, 3 and 4), and send those to up to 16 devices. You could then bus them into overall groups/categories to squeeze them back into 8 stereo returns. So for instance, you could have 4, 5, 6, however many different types of reverbs as mix channels. Shift select them then press CTRL+G, and route that group back to a stereo FX return and call it "FX-Reverbs" (or whatever). Do the same for delays, etc. etc. In this way you could have a mixture of stereo return buses (say, 6) and then the remaining 2 pairs of returns could service 4 mono effect returns. Or any combination. 4 and 4. 3 and 7. Whatever.

Now, that's assuming you actually *need* that many different types of effects. The most important lesson I learned is to keep it simple. Just because you can do something (16 sends) doesn't mean you have to. Firstly, the listener is only gonna be able to discern between so many types of reverb. And too many different characters happening at once is gonna seriously screw with your mix. If you need drastically different reverbs then you can either use inserts, or automate parameters on the send effect where you need them to change. But for the most part, the simpler a mix, the cleaner and more distinct it's gonna be. It's also gonna make your workflow a *lot* simpler. Reason, for me anyway, is at its most efficient and elegant when you use less stuff, and the signal chain is simple and easy to navigate. Then when you do decide to go crazy on a specific element or section, it really has impact.

[Voyager]

A better option may be to use a splitter on the Direct Output of the main Mix Channel, and create three new mix channels (same total number of channels as your approach). The main channel has the EQ/dynamics and fader (plus any shared sends), the Mix Channels after the splitter are used as follows: 1) dry signal 2) FX1,and 3) FX2. In this setup you don’t adjust the dry channel at all, instead you use the main channel fader and all FX follow.

Isn't this basically the same thing as my setup except i use the output bus to do what the main channel do in your setup ?

I also noticed that with your suggestion i can't solo the fx channels ?! it's something that i like to do to know what's going on exactly when Equing the fx.

[Voyager]

A better option may be to use a splitter on the Direct Output of the main Mix Channel, and create three new mix channels (same total number of channels as your approach). The main channel has the EQ/dynamics and fader (plus any shared sends), the Mix Channels after the splitter are used as follows: 1) dry signal 2) FX1,and 3) FX2. In this setup you don’t adjust the dry channel at all, instead you use the main channel fader and all FX follow.

Isn't this basically the same thing as my setup except i use the output bus to do what the main channel do in your setup ?

I also noticed that with your suggestion i can't solo the fx channels ?! it's something that i like to do to know what's going on exactly when Equing the fx.

Selig ?

About parallel processing there is a Re that came out recently called Spem and it's a little parallel or serial processing mixer, seems a nice alternative too. Just wondering if Reason built-in compensation delay work with this device.

[kuhliloach]

Reason's SSL seems like an afterthought; it might as well be a Rack Extension. It sits very prominently in the current UI but when you look inside Reason's brain by recalling the history of Reason's development we a see a rich and distant past that has no SSL. It was sort of plopped there, kind of like the way Players are plopped in front of instruments. Crudely, yet somehow serviceable.

Last night I was playing with some filters on the Rack, as inserts. At the same time, on the SSL, I also had the HPF engaged on this track. But I had forgotten about the SSL filter for a while, then had an ah-ha moment when I remembered. With the SSL minimized Reason didn't supply me with any kind of visual reminder about the redundant filters I had engaged - it was up to me to keep everything in mind. So, while the SSL sits front-and-center, should it?

As mentioned in this thread things can get messy with all the redundant ways to do things in Reason. I would invite you to solve all the issues you are facing right on the rack, with the SSL minimized, using 0 send effects. There is a time and place for the great Reason SSL emulation, but it truly is not the heart of the matter, even though we've been convinced of that based on its placement.

[Blast]

Most DAWs have unlimited send channels why do we have to settle for only 8 in Reason? all mix engineers mix differently, some mix engineers use a lot sends in their mix template and some might only use 4. the point is Props should give each user the option to mix however they want to without unnecessary limitations. ADD MORE SEND CHANNELS and a lot of Reason users including myself will appreciate it.

[selig]

A better option may be to use a splitter on the Direct Output of the main Mix Channel, and create three new mix channels (same total number of channels as your approach). The main channel has the EQ/dynamics and fader (plus any shared sends), the Mix Channels after the splitter are used as follows: 1) dry signal 2) FX1,and 3) FX2. In this setup you don’t adjust the dry channel at all, instead you use the main channel fader and all FX follow.

Isn't this basically the same thing as my setup except i use the output bus to do what the main channel do in your setup ?

I also noticed that with your suggestion i can't solo the fx channels ?! it's something that i like to do to know what's going on exactly when Equing the fx.

Solo is a problem with every alternative approach. The only way solo works correctly with FX is when you use the built in returns.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[jimmyklane]

Yes, i think your understanding it perfectly.

And thanks for your answear wish is useful and not hard to implement. But in terms of workflow, well i'll try to get used to that.

In other Daws such as Cubase or Pro Tools i think it's easier to put up the send effects, the panning of the send in the individual signals/instruments, etc. And not be limited to those 8 slots.

I'm trying to do it all in Reason now. The producing and also the final mixing. Wich, with a lot of tracks can be still be a bit difficult in terms of the workflow and some limitations, i believe. I used to do my final mixing in Cubase.

I'm still getting used to it all in Reason and figuring it out and in the end deciding if it's practical to to it all in Reason, or should i export the files to Cubase and do the final mixing there.

I'm getting used to it.

To the best of my knowledge (and I’m still on Nuendo 5, so maybe my info is outdated) there are only 8 inserts and 8 aux sends per tracks, although you can have an unlimited number of “FX Tracks) so it could be a different 8 for each track.

Returning reverb in Mono is very useful, other posters, take note that this is the easiest and most effective way of having reverb on a source and still having point localization with a mono source in a stereo format. OP, If you’re panning those two reverbs hard L/R, then I 100% agree that you’re wasting an Aux send. In addition, you can do a few other small hacks: use 14:2 and 6:2 line mixers....especially the 14:2 gives you another 4 aux sends that are simply mixed down into one mix channel (think of this as a “sidecar” mixer often used in studios as a sub mixer for effects and/or synths, vocals, etc). In addition, you can insert the processors into individual tracks (or into busses if you want more than one track effected). By using wet/dry ratios you can get the same sound as an aux send but obviously you’re constrained to what’s in the bus.

Before the SSL came out, I used to work this way: multiple 14:2 mixers for different instruments or for different sections of a tracks, and I brought the outputs of all of those separate mixers into one final “main” mixer that summed them all together for a final project. I even created parallel compression by inserting a Comp-01 on an aux send and cranking drums into it and simply turning the return volume up/down as needed.

So, I hope this gives you a few neat and new ideas on how to expand the number of effects that you can have going at once!!!