selig wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018
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.
selig wrote: ↑19 Apr 2018
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.
Same, when a FX is part of the structure of a sound i go with inserts.