Number of send effects in Reason

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
manuel radioact77
Posts: 38
Joined: 09 Jun 2017

18 Apr 2018

Hello,

In a Reason session with 20 audio tracks or more, and for more individual control in pannings etc, it's easy for me to find myself needing more than 8 send channels for send effects. For example on a vocal track i can use two different mono send reverbs panned left and right. Plus various synths left and right, drums etc, with the individual pannings and automation it can get to 10, 12 sends.

Since the Reason SSL mixer only allows 8 send channels what would be the best way to get more than those 8 send channels?

Or you guys use parallel channels as a work around to this?

Thanks! :)

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1456
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

18 Apr 2018

If I'm understanding you correctly (which I might not be): If you're using two send slots for stereo reverbs, that can be reduced to one slot. You can route the left and right channels of a single send to different effects units and return them together as a stereo pair.
Sarah Mancuso
My music: Future Human

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

18 Apr 2018

Same with esselfortium, I may not be understanding you but it sounds like you may be using sends for busses when speaking about synths and drums with panning? You have unlimited busses fwiw.
And definitely no need for two sends on a vocal reverb as you describe it, as esselfortium already pointed out.

Parallel channels may not work if you need to send from more than one source, since a parallel channel only feeds from a single source.

Maybe more information to understand how you're working here, as there may be a more elegant way of accomplishing this in Reason…
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
manuel radioact77
Posts: 38
Joined: 09 Jun 2017

18 Apr 2018

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. :)

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

18 Apr 2018

manuel radioact77 wrote:
18 Apr 2018
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. :)
I come from an SSL background where you have 1 stereo send and four mono sends (totally "old school" since 1984), so I have a different view of having 8 stereo sends available. As a long time PT mixer, I would still not use more than 6-8 effects even on a big mix, but this also comes from an old school approach where DSP was limited (started with using hardware based PT systems back in the 1990s).

If I'm using an effect on a single channel, I'll use it as an insert since it's pretty much the same thing. You can "return" an insert in it's own Mix Channel if you like thanks to Reason's flexible routing, something not even possible in PT! As with moving from any system to another, there are things you loose and things you gain, so you gotta adjust your workflow accordingly. I'm mostly working in Reason these days, and not missing too much - but there are still things I can only do in Pro Tools, or prefer doing there like extreme automation (using a hardware ICON controller), drum editing, or large session tracking dates where you need separate headphone mixes and tons of I/O.

But for music creation, nothing beats Reason IMO (been composing there since 2003). As always, horses for courses…
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
manuel radioact77
Posts: 38
Joined: 09 Jun 2017

18 Apr 2018

Hi Selig :).

Yes i know you have unlimited busses, you just have to right click and create them. But do you have unlimited send channels/ slots for send effects without doing too much routing?

"Elegant way" in Reason? I don't understand. "Elegant" for me is the music of Serge Gainsbourg or Arthur Russell, or some of the Moroder music. But that is all subjective.

User avatar
manuel radioact77
Posts: 38
Joined: 09 Jun 2017

18 Apr 2018

Ok Selig i understand.
I'm not from the SSL days, i started with Cubase in around 2003 and with Reason 4 around 2005 maybe.
I love Reason. And i'm trying to adapt, as you say, in terms of the final mixing workflow.
And that's why i'm doing some of these (very obvious) questions.

Edit: Reason 4, that would have been 2007.
Last edited by manuel radioact77 on 18 Apr 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ljekio
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Jan 2015

18 Apr 2018

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

User avatar
Voyager
Posts: 535
Joined: 21 Dec 2015

18 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
18 Apr 2018
Parallel channels may not work if you need to send from more than one source, since a parallel channel only feeds from a single source.


Not sure i got it but you can't split the source parallel output and hook multiple mixer for send effects ?

User avatar
manuel radioact77
Posts: 38
Joined: 09 Jun 2017

18 Apr 2018

ljekio wrote:
18 Apr 2018
Unlimited groups of 4 sends from every 14:2 mixer device.
Ok thanks. I believe it's just a question of finding out the best workflow and get on with it.
Thanks!

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

18 Apr 2018

manuel radioact77 wrote:
18 Apr 2018
Hi Selig :).

Yes i know you have unlimited busses, you just have to right click and create them. But do you have unlimited send channels/ slots for send effects without doing too much routing?

"Elegant way" in Reason? I don't understand. "Elegant" for me is the music of Serge Gainsbourg or Arthur Russell, or some of the Moroder music. But that is all subjective.
No, not unlimited send channels unfortunately. "Elegant" as in the second definition (not in the fashion sense):
(of a scientific theory or solution to a problem) pleasingly ingenious and simple.
"the grand unified theory is compact and elegant in mathematical terms"
;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

18 Apr 2018

ljekio wrote:
18 Apr 2018
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.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11170
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

18 Apr 2018

At first i found 8 and fx not enough too,but tbh i never reached more than 4. I tend to use insert fx or parallel channels if they belong to only a specific sound or group (bus). I use the send fx is for overall room generation for all sounds.

In Reason you can do pretty wird auf with the cables. As someone already mentioned, you can use rack mixers and there send fx, split or double audio signals to different devices or channels. But this can be complicated and the workflow gets non intuitive.

I recommend to rethink, if you really need send fx or just a bus channel, which has insert fx or a parallel fx channel.
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

18 Apr 2018

Voyager wrote:
18 Apr 2018
selig wrote:
18 Apr 2018
Parallel channels may not work if you need to send from more than one source, since a parallel channel only feeds from a single source.


Not sure i got it but you can't split the source parallel output and hook multiple mixer for send effects ?
One problem with parallel channels is you loose any processing on the main channel (EQ/Dynamics/Inserts), AND you are no longer "post-fader".

One other way to get more post-fader sends is to route a channel to a new bus (one channel to one bus), and then split the signal and add a gain device (line mixer is one solution) for each send.

The other issue with any of these alternative solutions is the problem of soloing, because it is no longer a one-button solution. The Reason mixer REALLY needs solo isolate for Mix Channels… ;(
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

18 Apr 2018

Create combinators for your stereo reverbs. There’s no need to use two separate mono sends. Reverbs and other fx used on only one instrument shout be used as inserts as previously stated. That’ll cut down your sends by at least half.

deepndark
Posts: 1270
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Finland
Contact:

18 Apr 2018

Or just use the old good 14:2 mixers for every track that needs extra sends.

User avatar
Voyager
Posts: 535
Joined: 21 Dec 2015

19 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
18 Apr 2018
One problem with parallel channels is you loose any processing on the main channel (EQ/Dynamics/Inserts), AND you are no longer "post-fader".



How do you exactly use parallel channel ?

I personally almost never use a single bus for different tracks. Usually if a decide to parallel track the source channel has no insert effects, i usually leave it raw except some EQing. I can also sometimes use more than one parallel channel for a single track.

So what i do is split the parallel out of the source track and depending how much parallel effect i need creating new mix channels and than choosing my effects. I then always blend my effects more than 50% to not keep the dry signal and on top of that i sidechain and EQing all my effects to keep the source signal clear as possible. Finally i create a new bus where i have my source and effects.

So the idea is to have a full independent control of my effects blending between them and the source signal and the bus of course allow me to control all of them at once just as a post fader send will do.

I have made some comparison between this way and using the ssl send and i feel not getting the same result. I found out that i get a more better result using my way. The source track stay clean and sharp while the ssl send tend to get louder because of mixing two dry signals and get also muddier in the low end and so overall the source track is loosing a bit of resolution.

Note, i'm producing electronic music and this kind of music has a lot of independent tracks and were some effect are not simple effect but part of the sound structure of the sound itself. So i may understand that some of the ways of producing and mixing pop/rock and other real instruments music genre may not apply for electronic music production and mixing.

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11170
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

19 Apr 2018

Voyager wrote:
19 Apr 2018
selig wrote:
18 Apr 2018
One problem with parallel channels is you loose any processing on the main channel (EQ/Dynamics/Inserts), AND you are no longer "post-fader".



How do you exactly use parallel channel ?

I personally almost never use a single bus for different tracks. Usually if a decide to parallel track the source channel has no insert effects, i usually leave it raw except some EQing. I can also sometimes use more than one parallel channel for a single track.

So what i do is split the parallel out of the source track and depending how much parallel effect i need creating new mix channels and than choosing my effects. I then always blend my effects more than 50% to not keep the dry signal and on top of that i sidechain and EQing all my effects to keep the source signal clear as possible. Finally i create a new bus where i have my source and effects.

So the idea is to have a full independent control of my effects blending between them and the source signal and the bus of course allow me to control all of them at once just as a post fader send will do.

I have made some comparison between this way and using the ssl send and i feel not getting the same result. I found out that i get a more better result using my way. The source track stay clean and sharp while the ssl send tend to get louder because of mixing two dry signals and get also muddier in the low end and so overall the source track is loosing a bit of resolution.

Note, i'm producing electronic music and this kind of music has a lot of independent tracks and were some effect are not simple effect but part of the sound structure of the sound itself. So i may understand that some of the ways of producing and mixing pop/rock and other real instruments music genre may not apply for electronic music production and mixing.
What Selig said is only the half truth. Yes, you lose it EQ/Dynamics/... on parallel channels, but you can send the channel to a mix bus, which than contains all settings. Now you can start again with eq/dynamics and so on. Same goes for parallel channels, just route them to your mix bus as required.

You should understand, what a parallel bus is: it is the original parallel audio without processing. If you need the processing included in your parallel channel, you need to send it to a mix bus, than create a parallel channel for that mix bus. This can be repeated endlessly.

I use this technique rarely, because it can get messy. As i already mentioned, think abut what audio signal you want how to be processed, than think about how to route it. There might be huge difference in using insert, send and parallel fx, especially if you have multiple processings going on.

As an example, i often create a parallel track to create a distorted/staurated/overdriven/... signal. This also often requires an EQ before and maybe after the fx processing. The easiest way is to hook an insert fx eq before and after the distortion in the rack. If you want to use the EQ from the SSL on your parallel channel, you might change the routing of the channel (EQ before insert as an example). Now if i blend the original and eq+distortion together, i might want to hook up an eq and a compressor to it, so i need to route both channels to a new mix bus and process it there.


To just have another send fx as a mix bus channel, do the following
* Create a mix bus
* add a audio merger, preferable a simple mixer like the 14:4, into it
* connect it to the Insert In from your mix channel or to the Audio In of the mix channel (between mix channel and interal 14:4 mixer)
* Now split from every channel your signal also into this 14:4 Mixer
* Adjust "send" amount with the faders
* Now comes the magic part
** Add your send fx past the 14:4 Mixer (Audio Out) and route the fx out to the Audio In or Insert In
** Alternatively you directly connect your fx to the send fx of the 14:4 Mixer, but note that this is NOT Delay Compensated and also note, you still have a dry signal in that connection style!
-> The cool thing in this setup in general is, you can also add additional processing before each signal goes into the "send" fx, like band passing and so on. Note, that this is also NOT delay compensated

I guess you get the point. The routing may be vary on your needs and you should understand HOW you want to route your audio to get a specific result. Using send fx only is a big limitation IMHO.
Reason12, Win10

S1GNL
Posts: 83
Joined: 31 Jan 2018

19 Apr 2018

No offense, but most of you guys sound like some real Reason "apologetics".

No matter what kind of complaint there is, the tenor is always "But you can use a workaround" and "Why do you need that?" Well, I (and obviously others) need that... because.

Don't get me wrong, I love it and I don't want to switch (back again) to another DAW. It's just frustrating that there are some missing basic features, which won't involve any earthshattering changes to the code or UI at all if Propellerheads would have already implemented them. Seriously, guys...

It's obvious that there is a demand for more send channels. And no, I don't want to adapt your complicated workflow/workaround to avoid "talking bad" about Reason. Every mentionable DAW is much more flexible in that term, because it provides its user the freedom to choose as many Send Channels as he wishes to have. What's the matter with Props?

That limitation is pure nonsense and I just don't want to believe that it's that hard and complicated to add more send channels to the channel strip. If you can write the code for 4 of them, than you shoud be able to write the code for 16 of them. It's not a braincracker. Regarding the UI, it shouldn't be that complicated to include a hide/show feature either to keep the mixer clean - just as you already have it with the Hardware Interface and the Channel Strip sections (EQ, FX, ...).

Please...

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11170
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

19 Apr 2018

S1GNL wrote:
19 Apr 2018
No offense, but most of you guys sound like some real Reason "apologetics".

No matter what kind of complaint there is, the tenor is always "But you can use a workaround" and "Why do you need that?" Well, I (and obviously others) need that... because.

Don't get me wrong, I love it and I don't want to switch (back again) to another DAW. It's just frustrating that there are some missing basic features, which won't involve any earthshattering changes to the code or UI at all if Propellerheads would have already implemented them. Seriously, guys...

It's obvious that there is a demand for more send channels. And no, I don't want to adapt your complicated workflow/workaround to avoid "talking bad" about Reason. Every mentionable DAW is much more flexible in that term, because it provides its user the freedom to choose as many Send Channels as he wishes to have. What's the matter with Props?

That limitation is pure nonsense and I just don't want to believe that it's that hard and complicated to add more send channels to the channel strip. If you can write the code for 4 of them, than you shoud be able to write the code for 16 of them. It's not a braincracker. Regarding the UI, it shouldn't be that complicated to include a hide/show feature either to keep the mixer clean - just as you already have it with the Hardware Interface and the Channel Strip sections (EQ, FX, ...).

Please...
You might be right in some cases. I dont like forum answers too like "why do you need that?" - just answer my fogging question! But i guess in this case, the questions are legitimate, because it sounds like wrong, missuse or overuse of a feature. It is also legitimate to ask details, to get the main usecase of the OP. So no need to comment a answer in a way which does not belong to the main question. I guess you get the point.

And i agree even more, that i dont get those limitations in a application at all. Why are there any limitations to mod-matrixes, number of oscillators or filters in a synth, number of send fx in the SSL, number of rotaries in a Combinator and so forth. The answer is quite simple: The limitations are actually there! Live with it, get around them, complain at the developer, or leave the platform.

Now we can go back to the discussion about the OP?
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

19 Apr 2018

Loque wrote:
Voyager wrote:
19 Apr 2018



How do you exactly use parallel channel ?

I personally almost never use a single bus for different tracks. Usually if a decide to parallel track the source channel has no insert effects, i usually leave it raw except some EQing. I can also sometimes use more than one parallel channel for a single track.

So what i do is split the parallel out of the source track and depending how much parallel effect i need creating new mix channels and than choosing my effects. I then always blend my effects more than 50% to not keep the dry signal and on top of that i sidechain and EQing all my effects to keep the source signal clear as possible. Finally i create a new bus where i have my source and effects.

So the idea is to have a full independent control of my effects blending between them and the source signal and the bus of course allow me to control all of them at once just as a post fader send will do.

I have made some comparison between this way and using the ssl send and i feel not getting the same result. I found out that i get a more better result using my way. The source track stay clean and sharp while the ssl send tend to get louder because of mixing two dry signals and get also muddier in the low end and so overall the source track is loosing a bit of resolution.

Note, i'm producing electronic music and this kind of music has a lot of independent tracks and were some effect are not simple effect but part of the sound structure of the sound itself. So i may understand that some of the ways of producing and mixing pop/rock and other real instruments music genre may not apply for electronic music production and mixing.
What Selig said is only the half truth. Yes, you lose it EQ/Dynamics/... on parallel channels, but you can send the channel to a mix bus, which than contains all settings. Now you can start again with eq/dynamics and so on. Same goes for parallel channels, just route them to your mix bus as required.

You should understand, what a parallel bus is: it is the original parallel audio without processing. If you need the processing included in your parallel channel, you need to send it to a mix bus, than create a parallel channel for that mix bus. This can be repeated endlessly.

I use this technique rarely, because it can get messy. As i already mentioned, think abut what audio signal you want how to be processed, than think about how to route it. There might be huge difference in using insert, send and parallel fx, especially if you have multiple processings going on.

As an example, i often create a parallel track to create a distorted/staurated/overdriven/... signal. This also often requires an EQ before and maybe after the fx processing. The easiest way is to hook an insert fx eq before and after the distortion in the rack. If you want to use the EQ from the SSL on your parallel channel, you might change the routing of the channel (EQ before insert as an example). Now if i blend the original and eq+distortion together, i might want to hook up an eq and a compressor to it, so i need to route both channels to a new mix bus and process it there.


To just have another send fx as a mix bus channel, do the following
* Create a mix bus
* add a audio merger, preferable a simple mixer like the 14:4, into it
* connect it to the Insert In from your mix channel or to the Audio In of the mix channel (between mix channel and interal 14:4 mixer)
* Now split from every channel your signal also into this 14:4 Mixer
* Adjust "send" amount with the faders
* Now comes the magic part
** Add your send fx past the 14:4 Mixer (Audio Out) and route the fx out to the Audio In or Insert In
** Alternatively you directly connect your fx to the send fx of the 14:4 Mixer, but note that this is NOT Delay Compensated and also note, you still have a dry signal in that connection style!
-> The cool thing in this setup in general is, you can also add additional processing before each signal goes into the "send" fx, like band passing and so on. Note, that this is also NOT delay compensated

I guess you get the point. The routing may be vary on your needs and you should understand HOW you want to route your audio to get a specific result. Using send fx only is a big limitation IMHO.
These are all “PRE FADER” sends, right? Or am I still only “half right” lol!? [emoji6]

(You never said which half of what I said was NOT right!)

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

19 Apr 2018

S1GNL wrote:No offense, but most of you guys sound like some real Reason "apologetics".

No matter what kind of complaint there is, the tenor is always "But you can use a workaround" and "Why do you need that?" Well, I (and obviously others) need that... because.

Don't get me wrong, I love it and I don't want to switch (back again) to another DAW. It's just frustrating that there are some missing basic features, which won't involve any earthshattering changes to the code or UI at all if Propellerheads would have already implemented them. Seriously, guys...

It's obvious that there is a demand for more send channels. And no, I don't want to adapt your complicated workflow/workaround to avoid "talking bad" about Reason. Every mentionable DAW is much more flexible in that term, because it provides its user the freedom to choose as many Send Channels as he wishes to have. What's the matter with Props?

That limitation is pure nonsense and I just don't want to believe that it's that hard and complicated to add more send channels to the channel strip. If you can write the code for 4 of them, than you shoud be able to write the code for 16 of them. It's not a braincracker. Regarding the UI, it shouldn't be that complicated to include a hide/show feature either to keep the mixer clean - just as you already have it with the Hardware Interface and the Channel Strip sections (EQ, FX, ...).

Please...
I don’t see how pointing out the advantages AND disadvantages of a particular workaround is being an apologist…I see it more as being a realist! [emoji3]

Your options are (at least):
Use a workaround.
Use fewer than 8 sends (what I do).
Complain about it.
Don’t use Reason.

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11170
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

19 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
19 Apr 2018
Loque wrote:
What Selig said is only the half truth. Yes, you lose it EQ/Dynamics/... on parallel channels, but you can send the channel to a mix bus, which than contains all settings. Now you can start again with eq/dynamics and so on. Same goes for parallel channels, just route them to your mix bus as required.

You should understand, what a parallel bus is: it is the original parallel audio without processing. If you need the processing included in your parallel channel, you need to send it to a mix bus, than create a parallel channel for that mix bus. This can be repeated endlessly.

I use this technique rarely, because it can get messy. As i already mentioned, think abut what audio signal you want how to be processed, than think about how to route it. There might be huge difference in using insert, send and parallel fx, especially if you have multiple processings going on.

As an example, i often create a parallel track to create a distorted/staurated/overdriven/... signal. This also often requires an EQ before and maybe after the fx processing. The easiest way is to hook an insert fx eq before and after the distortion in the rack. If you want to use the EQ from the SSL on your parallel channel, you might change the routing of the channel (EQ before insert as an example). Now if i blend the original and eq+distortion together, i might want to hook up an eq and a compressor to it, so i need to route both channels to a new mix bus and process it there.


To just have another send fx as a mix bus channel, do the following
* Create a mix bus
* add a audio merger, preferable a simple mixer like the 14:4, into it
* connect it to the Insert In from your mix channel or to the Audio In of the mix channel (between mix channel and interal 14:4 mixer)
* Now split from every channel your signal also into this 14:4 Mixer
* Adjust "send" amount with the faders
* Now comes the magic part
** Add your send fx past the 14:4 Mixer (Audio Out) and route the fx out to the Audio In or Insert In
** Alternatively you directly connect your fx to the send fx of the 14:4 Mixer, but note that this is NOT Delay Compensated and also note, you still have a dry signal in that connection style!
-> The cool thing in this setup in general is, you can also add additional processing before each signal goes into the "send" fx, like band passing and so on. Note, that this is also NOT delay compensated

I guess you get the point. The routing may be vary on your needs and you should understand HOW you want to route your audio to get a specific result. Using send fx only is a big limitation IMHO.
These are all “PRE FADER” sends, right? Or “half right” lol!? ;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I dont get your point, sorry.
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
Voyager
Posts: 535
Joined: 21 Dec 2015

19 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
19 Apr 2018

S1GNL wrote:No offense, but most of you guys sound like some real Reason "apologetics".

No matter what kind of complaint there is, the tenor is always "But you can use a workaround" and "Why do you need that?" Well, I (and obviously others) need that... because.

Don't get me wrong, I love it and I don't want to switch (back again) to another DAW. It's just frustrating that there are some missing basic features, which won't involve any earthshattering changes to the code or UI at all if Propellerheads would have already implemented them. Seriously, guys...

It's obvious that there is a demand for more send channels. And no, I don't want to adapt your complicated workflow/workaround to avoid "talking bad" about Reason. Every mentionable DAW is much more flexible in that term, because it provides its user the freedom to choose as many Send Channels as he wishes to have. What's the matter with Props?

That limitation is pure nonsense and I just don't want to believe that it's that hard and complicated to add more send channels to the channel strip. If you can write the code for 4 of them, than you shoud be able to write the code for 16 of them. It's not a braincracker. Regarding the UI, it shouldn't be that complicated to include a hide/show feature either to keep the mixer clean - just as you already have it with the Hardware Interface and the Channel Strip sections (EQ, FX, ...).

Please...


I don’t see how pointing out the advantages AND disadvantages of a particular workaround is being an apologist…I see it more as being a realist! [emoji3]

Your options are (at least):
Use a workaround.
Use fewer than 8 sends (what I do).
Complain about it.
Don’t use Reason.

Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk


What i wrote above about how i'm dealing with the send effects and in particular the parallel channel is not really a workaround because of the 8 sends limitation. Ok it's true that i may need more than 8 sends sometimes and actually very often because as i said some effects are part of the sound structure.

Basically the reason why i'm dealing with the parallel channel as i do ( check my above message ) is because i like to have a full control of my effects which include EQing, sidechaining and blending control. I don't know if what i do it's a thing or is totally wrong but it work for me so far that way but if someone has something to suggest about the way i'm doing this please feel free to share your thoughs.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

19 Apr 2018

Voyager wrote:
How do you exactly use parallel channel ?

I personally almost never use a single bus for different tracks. Usually if a decide to parallel track the source channel has no insert effects, i usually leave it raw except some EQing. I can also sometimes use more than one parallel channel for a single track.

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.
Voyager wrote: So what i do is split the parallel out of the source track and depending how much parallel effect i need creating new mix channels and than choosing my effects. I then always blend my effects more than 50% to not keep the dry signal and on top of that i sidechain and EQing all my effects to keep the source signal clear as possible. Finally i create a new bus where i have my source and effects.

So the idea is to have a full independent control of my effects blending between them and the source signal and the bus of course allow me to control all of them at once just as a post fader send will do.

I have made some comparison between this way and using the ssl send and i feel not getting the same result. I found out that i get a more better result using my way. The source track stay clean and sharp while the ssl send tend to get louder because of mixing two dry signals and get also muddier in the low end and so overall the source track is loosing a bit of resolution.
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!
Voyager wrote: Note, i'm producing electronic music and this kind of music has a lot of independent tracks and were some effect are not simple effect but part of the sound structure of the sound itself. So i may understand that some of the ways of producing and mixing pop/rock and other real instruments music genre may not apply for electronic music production and mixing.
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.

In my experience, big pop and RNB music uses hundreds of tracks (sometimes 30-40 or more just for vocals, while many electronic producers stay in the double digits. This is not a rule by any means, just saying high track counts and tons of FX aren’t exclusive to electronic music producers. ;)

Bottom line - if it’s working for you, I’m not here to tell you to do any different! But I’m always curious about how other folks work, and often find ways to help them simplify their workflow and get better results after I first understand exactly what they’re doing and what they are going for. And in the process I often pick up a few tricks myself. :)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

Post Reply
  • Information